Bill C-56 (Historical)

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act and other Acts by establishing a scheme to provide for the payment of special benefits to self-employed persons who are not currently entitled to receive them.

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

Which means that Bill C-56 was tabled after yours. I take from that that this bill can be improved—and that is where Ms. Folco's question seems particularly appropriate. This is probably something that will have to be considered when the time comes to pass amendments that will reflect the new legislative reality.

You have referred to crimes and acts of violence. I think suicide is also an act of violence sometimes. It isn't necessarily a crime, however, for the reasons you cited earlier.

I would like to come back to the costs you referred to earlier. Since I have been in the House of Commons, I have learned that, in keeping with the saying “give a dog a bad name and hang him”, all you have to do is exaggerate the cost of a bill to be sure that it won't pass. Can someone—you perhaps—explain to me how you arrived at the figures you presented earlier?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Bill C-56 is a government bill, though.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Yes, that's correct. My bill, Bill C-343, is intended to amend legislation to include the concept of “family leave”. You can't go from one bill to the next and keep on repeating the same things. Bill C-56 was aimed at self-employed workers and people who have their own business, while my bill applies to a different category of people—those affected by violence.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Bill C-56.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

This bill does not affect self-employed workers because another bill, Bill C-56, was tabled last year to deal with special benefit for them.

Opposition motion—Representation of Quebec in the House of Commons

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this excellent motion moved by the hon. member for Joliette, who is our House leader.

It is quite interesting to listen to the debates in this House and to hear the Conservatives and the Liberals ask our House leader questions. These two parties have been in power throughout Canada's entire existence.

I would like to go over a bit of history with them because it is not true that representation in this country has been based on population. I will provide the dates. In 1931, Quebec had 27.7% of the population and 26.53% of the seats; in 1941, it was 28.96% of the population and 26.53% of the seats; in 1951, 28.95% of the population and 27.86% of the seats; in 1966, 28.88% of the population and 28.03% of the seats and in 1976, 27.12% of the population and 26.6% of the seats. Accordingly, from 1931 to 1976, Quebec's population was proportionally larger than the number of seats it had in this House. My colleague also said that when the British North America Act was ratified, Lower Canada and Upper Canada were represented proportionally.

Today, the Conservatives have, for purely partisan reasons, decided to change the way things are. Tom Flanagan, their guru, makes no secret of it. The way the Conservatives might come to power with a majority is to decrease Quebec's relative weight by increasing the number of seats in the rest of Canada. That is the reality.

Today, we are defending the rights of all Quebeckers because there is a political party that has decided, for purely partisan reasons, to change the way things are in that country. It is their country. They can do what they want with their country. Just now, the hon. member said it well: if they want to increase the number of seats, they can go ahead, but they have to maintain the proportionality and the representation of Quebec. Why? Because the National Assembly unanimously wishes to protect that representation. That is why I will introduce an amendment. But, at the moment, we consider that Quebec currently having 24.3% of the seats shows fairness and respect for the nation of Quebec. What good is it for the Conservatives to recognize the nation of Quebec if, as soon as they get the chance, they want to reduce its political weight in this House? That is the harsh reality.

Earlier, the hon. member made reference to a poll that was conducted, not several years ago, but on April 7. The poll showed that 71% of Quebeckers oppose a bill of this kind. What is worse, in Canada as a whole, 37% of the respondents came out in favour of the Conservative plan while 45% were against. The Conservatives have decided to defy public opinion for no other reason than that they want to protect or promote their own partisan politics. This is their way of governing and of achieving a majority in their country, by reducing the political stature of Quebec.

When we consider the positions taken by the Government of Quebec, we see that the National Assembly unanimously demanded the withdrawal of Bill C-56 that gave 26 seats to English Canada and none to Quebec. In other words, all the elected representatives of the nation of Quebec in the National Assembly, plus the 49 Bloc Québécois members of Parliament, that is, 87% of the all Quebec's elected representatives, both in the National Assembly and in the House of Commons, reject Bill C-56. The hon. member for Hochelaga did the calculations for us and he is a renowned economist who knows a thing or two about numbers.

I could quote the statement made by a constitutional expert, Mr. Benoît Pelletier, a former Liberal minister—clearly, he is no sovereignist—who laid out his position in a radio broadcast on May 17, 2007. He said:

I appreciate that the House is based on proportional representation. But I wonder whether there might be special measures to protect Quebec, which represents the main linguistic minority in Canada, is a founding province of Canada and is losing demographic weight. Why could Quebec not be accommodated because of its status as a nation and a national minority within Canada?

As I said, those are the words of Benoît Pelletier, the then minister responsible for international relations and relations with Canada.

Mr. Pelletier is a renowned constitutionalist and a staunch defender of Quebec's political weight.

The purpose of the motion that the House Leader of the Bloc Québécois introduced today is simple. All the Bloc Québécois wants is to protect Quebec's current political weight. We are not asking for anything new.

I gave the numbers from 1931 to 1976. With the population as the basis, we in fact had an under-representation of members. What we are asking all the parties in the House is to respect Quebec's political weight. It is simple. Its political weight is 24.3%. If you want to add ridings in the rest of Canada, that is fine. But let us make sure that Quebec, too, gets more seats, so that it represents 24.3% of the members in the House. It is simply a sign of respect by one nation towards another. That is the reality.

Otherwise, the motion adopted by the House of Commons on the Quebec nation was nothing more than a show and yet another political manoeuvre. What is unfortunate is that the Conservatives, for better or for worse, did not take into account the fact that Quebeckers see themselves as a nation. Obviously, they expect that to be reflected in more than just a title granted by the House of Commons during its proceedings, but to also be recognized in the legislation that the House passes.

That kind of recognition would mean above all that no bill would be introduced to change the number of ridings in the country without protecting the interests of the Quebec nation. The National Assembly of Quebec is asking unanimously that Quebec's political weight not be altered by this legislative change, pure and simple. That is the reality. History shows that Quebec agreed to have a different weight for its population. We know that some provinces have more members than they should based on the weight of their population. Throughout Canada's history, Quebeckers have been good sports.

Now the Conservatives are coming at the numbers from a purely partisan angle. Tom Flanagan said that if they could get more members elected in Ontario and western Canada, they could win a majority, regardless of how Quebec votes.

On the surface, it seems that the Liberals are all too prepared to fall into the Conservative trap once again, also for purely partisan reasons. It is unfortunate. These are the only two parties that have ever governed this country. Of course they only care about their own political interests, rather than the interests of the people, and in this case, Quebec's interests.

There is no greater defender of Quebec's interests than the National Assembly of Quebec, which, through a unanimous vote, is calling on Ottawa to withdraw this bill because it reduces Quebec's political weight. It is appalling that a unanimous vote by the National Assembly is being so easily dismissed. This country will never move forward until Quebec becomes a country of its own and we can begin nation-to-nation business relations and harmonious relations as neighbours.

For purely partisan reasons, both the Conservatives and the Liberals are trying to manipulate things and fudge the numbers, to change the number of members in order to achieve a majority and win the next election, and have all the power to themselves. I have always said that politics can drive people crazy. Some are nearly there.

I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Laval, the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words “in the House” and substituting the following: “and call on the government not to enact any legislation that would reduce Quebec's current representation in the House of Commons of 24.35% of the seats.”.

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

—and has chaired this committee as well.... So there are people who have been around before, and different ministers have different styles.

But when we look at the last couple of times that the minister has come before the committee—this committee was a busy committee last year—there were a number of EI initiatives, and we didn't feel that they addressed some of the key issues we thought should have been addressed, issues of access in particular, and of some kind of national standard for EI. But we had a number of bills: in the budget a year ago there was the extension of EI benefits, which required some discussion, and the minister came before the committee on that; then we had a busy fall with Bill C-50 and Bill C-56, and it was in debating these two pieces of legislation that this committee dug up a lot of questions about the legislation, such as on the issue of the self-employed, for example, Madam Chair.

The reason we need to make sure that the minister gives us as much time as she possibly can is that it was at this committee that a lot of the questions about that bill came forward. For example, the question of how much of a draw this would be on the EI fund came about in discussion with either officials or the minister. There was also the issue of whether the rate was fair for the people in Quebec. I recall that the rate was $1.73 for everybody, and I think it was $1.37 or $1.38 in Quebec, keeping in mind that Quebec was already largely covered for maternal and parental benefits.

So this committee has done some significant work with the ministers here.

It has also just crystallized in my head right now that I think I've made my point. I'm ready to have a vote.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoyed listening to the comments and the intention behind the bill. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave). It affects two pieces of legislation.

All members here certainly sympathize with those whose loved ones have been victims of violent crime. There is no question about that. It can take a long time for anyone to fully heal from that kind of tragedy.

Before discussing what may be the best way to support these victims and their families, I would like to take a moment to sum up the main components of the proposed legislation.

Bill C-343 would amend the Canada Labour Code to introduce a new type of unpaid leave, known as family leave, which would be available to federally regulated employees whose family member has experienced certain kinds of trauma. It would also amend the Employment Insurance Act to provide temporary income support for up to 52 weeks, including the two-week waiting period, to eligible individuals who take this new type of family leave. It would also use a provision of the same act to ensure that premium rates were reduced in provinces where similar income support is provided.

In part, the proposed bill seeks to address issues related to victims of violence through the employment insurance program. I should like to note that the employment insurance program already provides some compensation to victims of crime. Specifically, eligible individuals who are unable to work and who are undergoing treatment for the psychological effects of bereavement or violent crime would be eligible for up to 15 weeks of employment insurance sickness benefits. In this way, the employment insurance program already responds to the needs of Canadians in these difficult circumstances. In limited situations, eligible workers can also access up to six weeks of compassionate care benefits.

While the EI system plays a very important role in providing some income support during absences from work for Canadians, the government recognizes it may not address the needs of all victims in all situations. The proposed changes represent a significant shift to special benefits, and it is not clear that employment insurance is the best instrument to provide income support under these circumstances. In addition to these concerns, the proposed changes have of a number of additional implications that are matters of concern.

The proposal to create family leave does raise some questions with respect to fairness. I am not sure whether, in making policy in this area, the distinctions and restrictions in this bill will result in a fair outcome.

For example, I am not sure parents of a 17-year-old and parents of a 19-year-old are deserving of substantially different treatment by the EI system. In the painful cases this bill seeks to address, I am not sure either type of parent would agree that differential treatment is fair either. While this is a little outside the scope of the bill, I am concerned that crime is the only thing being addressed here by these changes and that other painful and tragic events that are no less shocking, unexpected and difficult to endure are not being considered. As I said, other events are not within the scope of the bill, and that is a matter of concern for sure.

I will move on, however. It is important to note that most provinces already offer a variety of supports to assist families of victims of crime, such as coverage of medical expenses, as well as access to counselling services.

Six provinces even provide compensation for lost wages. Provincial compensation measures also have the advantage of being provided to victims and their families without regard to employment status.

Managing the employment insurance system is very complex, as we have seen in this House with the various pieces of legislation we have introduced, including the one that just passed today, Bill C-56. Our recent changes were only made after careful consideration and in response to a critical economic situation and, therefore, a situation that was critical for thousands of Canadians and their families. Our most recent proposal for change is to bring access and fairness to self-employed Canadians, as I mentioned, to the people who have never had access to the special benefits within the EI system before.

Right now, because of the global economic situation of the past year and because previous governments used EI premiums for non-EI spending, and the member makes a fair point there, the EI account is under strain. It is estimated that adopting the bill would increase program costs significantly and could result in significant upward pressure on premium rates, something that most people do not want.

While the length of the bill itself does not imply so, these proposed changes are major financial changes to the EI system. As we know from both the existing EI system and the new access to special benefits proposed by the government under Bill C-56, adding another class of people for whom 50 weeks' worth of benefits would be available is a very expensive proposition.

I am certainly not here to say that grief has a price tag or a price ceiling, but that these sorts of changes have consequences that need to be fully considered. Not only is the EI system perhaps not the best vehicle to help in these circumstances, but it is also an expensive way to use the system.

It is also important to bear in mind that the Department of Justice provides assistance with respect to issues surrounding victims of violence. It already offers a variety of programs and services, including the victims fund and the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. In fact, in 2007, our government made a $52 million commitment over four years to increase services for victims and funding to the provinces for elements of their programs.

Finally, our government is also working to better protect Canadians against those who commit serious and violent crimes. In February 2008, the Tackling Violent Crime Act became law. This act strengthens the Criminal Code in the following five ways: mandatory prison sentences for criminals who commit crimes with guns; tougher bail rules to make it easier to keep people accused of serious gun crimes off our streets; a higher age of protection, that is, 16 years old, to protect children from sexual predators; new stronger measures against impaired driving; and more effective sentencing and monitoring to prevent dangerous high-risk offenders from offending again. Collectively these will certainly have an impact on reducing the number of victims.

Our government is concerned about the impact of violence on all Canadians and it is taking measures to address these concerns. We always welcome ideas for improvements to programs and services to respond to the needs of victims and their families. However, further consideration is required to determine whether employment insurance is the most suitable income replacement instrument for addressing this issue.

I want to assure the House that our government acknowledges the extensive work done by groups engaged in promoting a better understanding of the needs of victims and their families. These include the Murdered or Missing Persons' Families Association, led by Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu.

However, we believe that the Canada Labour Code should not be amended in such a piecemeal manner. We strongly believe that adopting a comprehensive approach would enable us to address more efficiently the needs of employees whose family member has been a victim of violent crime, has committed suicide, or whose child has disappeared.

For all of these reasons, the government cannot support this bill and intends, at the appropriate time, to move forward on this issue and introduce its own legislation for unpaid leave for victims of crime. This area is an important one and these issues need to be addressed, but they need to be addressed in a comprehensive manner.

Going through the employment insurance program is not the way to go. The system is not specifically designed for that and this may not be the time to work through that. As I have said, the government will be introducing legislation and certainly will deal with the issues that have been raised.

Business of the House

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions throughout the afternoon with all parties, and I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the question on the third reading motion of Bill C-56 be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and the vote taken now, and when the House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, January 25, 2010, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, December 11, 2009; and

That this House call upon the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to ask the Employment Insurance Commission to include in its Monitoring and Assessment Report an additional section that would monitor and assess the new employment insurance program for self-employed workers including a breakdown of data by province and that this House ask the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board to consider the history of premiums and contributions in determining the rates of contribution if Quebec’s self-employed workers are making contributions that do not correspond to the true cost of the benefits offered to Quebec’s self-employed workers; and since the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act includes a five-year review of the new program, the policy direction should include a more detailed review from the Employment Insurance Commission in addition to the five-year legislative review.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bédard, for coming and for coming a couple of weeks ago when you flew standby. Today you had a guaranteed ticket. Thank you for coming back. I appreciate that.

I certainly don't agree with Mr. Lobb. There's a whole bunch of information in this, certainly, that wasn't made available to us when we had a look at this bill.

I've raised questions about the premium setting. I've raised a lot of questions about the deficit that will be on this fund, which we weren't given initially and were only given in response to our questions. Madame Folco has talked about the premium rates. My colleague Ms. Minna has spoken about the gender inequities, potentially, in this bill and how it relates to regular EI.

You've given us a lot of information. When I saw this this morning, I thought there was a lot of stuff here that would be of interest. If you were still the chief actuary of the EI Commission, if there were still the EI Commission as it was and you were still the chief actuary, would you sanction Bill C-56?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I have a point of order.

My understanding from the last meeting we had on Bill C-56 was that we were going to have an actuary come to actually investigate the numbers.

[Michel Bédard, Consultant, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Michel Bédard, and I thank you for your invitation to testify before the Committee concerning Bill C-56. I am an actuary by profession and I am appearing in my personal capacity. I was Chief Actuary to the Employment Insurance Commission from 1991 to 2003. I have also completed a number of missions for the International Labour Office as an employment insurance consultant.

I support the principle of the bill, namely the extension of special employment insurance benefits to the self-employed, but several aspects of it are problematic. My first comments relate to the financial aspects of the plan.

First, the new benefits would cost about $305 million in 2014, with about $212 million in parental benefits, that would be paid totally outside of Quebec; $93 million in sickness benefits, that would be paid out countrywide; and less than one million dollars in compassionate care benefits. The cost of these benefits represents 2.5% of insurable earnings in the case of parental benefits, and 0.9% in the case of sickness benefits, for a total of 3.40%.

These calculations are based on data from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, as supplied to your committee. In broad terms, the Department assumed that all those who joined the plan in order to receive parental benefits would ultimately receive them, or leave the plan, whereas in the case of sickness benefits, only 10% of the newly ensured would receive benefits.

What does Bill C-56 propose?

In 2014, a deficit of $86 million outside Quebec and a surplus of $18 million in Quebec, with contribution rates of 2.33% and 1.96% respectively. A rate of 1.96% in 2014 for self-employed workers in Quebec would thus represent double the forecast cost for this protection alone, the cost being 0.9%. This would be four times the rate now applicable to wage-earners for sickness and compassionate care benefits. This rate presently sits at 0.41%. We can calculate that at 1.36%, which was the rate in 2010, revenue in Quebec would already exceed costs. A representative of the Department confirmed this, stating before the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance that with a rate of 1.36%:

The typical self-employed individual in Quebec will receive benefits roughly equivalent to what the individual pays in premiums.

If so, why expect the rate to rise in the future? Together, these financial impacts therefore constitute the first stumbling block, in my opinion.

Second, the voluntary nature of the proposed system requires the government to impose strict conditions on those who wish to take advantage of it, in order to protect against opting out and abuse. There would accordingly be a waiting period of 12 months, which is much longer than what private schemes apply. Even in California, the comparable period is six months, for those who join the voluntary scheme for self-employed workers, and which it too is a disability insurance plan.

A third aspect that poses a problem, and will discourage participation in the plan, is the rule that would commit for life those who have received even minimal benefits, particularly for sickness. Have we ever seen income insurance that demands a lifetime of contributions after a minor claim? In California, the voluntary portion of the public disability insurance plan allows withdrawal after two years.

Fourth, if someone joins the plan mid-year, BillC-56 would require that they wait 12 months for coverage, but would require them to pay benefits for the entire year. Why not arrange to prorate contributions in such cases? As an alternative, the plan provides for those who register from January to March 2010 to qualify for benefits from January 1, 2011. Why not provide a similar clause for every year?

Fifth, and last, the employment insurance plan already includes a refund of contributions for those earning under $2,000 a year, since they do not qualify for benefits. Should there not be a similar clause in this voluntary plan, but based on a level of $6,000?

What are we to make of all of this?

Firstly, financially, with regard to these new benefits, it is inappropriate to adopt artificially the general rate for employees. Rather, we should select a funding mode that is proportional to the cost of the new benefits, and relatively stable.

Secondly, in order to fund a social benefit, namely parental benefits, while making it voluntary, the government found it necessary to impose strict limits. Among other things, these limits will have the effect of discouraging many potential participants, and make the system much less effective as a way of protecting incomes.

That is the gist of what I had to say.

I'll be pleased to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, perhaps I could get all the members back to the table. It's now ten after four, so if we could get started, then we could probably be finished by ten after five, although I realize bells are probably not going to be until about 5:22.

What I'm going to do is just read in the motion that this committee adopted. It reads:

That an independent actuary of the choosing of the opposition be invited to appear before the Committee for one hour before Christmas 2009 to give an independent analysis of the soundness, the rate setting, premium setting, and cost estimates of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

So I will welcome Mr. Bédard right now.

Sir, welcome. You have an opening statement, so we'll turn the floor over to you, and then, as usual, we'll go through our questions from the members of Parliament.

Welcome, sir, the floor is yours.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the business of supply.

Tomorrow it is my intention to call Bill C-56, the fairness for the self-employed act, which as we know is at third reading. It is crucial that we pass Bill C-56 before we rise for the Christmas break. To qualify for benefits, Canada's self-employed must have paid premiums for a year beforehand.

Officials in the department need the green light from Parliament to begin preparing for the January 1 implementation. We cannot start notifying people until the bill receives royal assent.

As we know, this bill is supported by three of the four parties in the House. When there is that much support, anything can happen. We will put that support to the test tomorrow when the government will propose to dispose of the final stages of Bill C-56. The support from the Liberals and the NDP in this minority Parliament are key of course, and I hope their support does not evaporate overnight.

This is our one chance to get this job done. The government will have every available body here tomorrow for the vote in order to get the fairness for the self-employed act into law before we break to ensure that the self-employed benefit from these important and popular measures.

While I am on my feet, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a merry Christmas to all my colleagues on both sides of the House following the rise of Parliament, whenever that might happen.

Notice of Closure

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of the third reading stage of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, I wish to give notice that at a next sitting a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

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

I'm going to answer Mr. Komarnicki's question and Mr. Jean's question. I think they are both very worthwhile questions that clearly reflect two opposing political options. For that reason, with all due respect, I will come back later with those two answers, but I will start with two statements made by Mr. Hiebert.

Mr. Hiebert started by telling us he is here as a visiting member. My impression is not that he is visiting the committee, but that he is visiting the House of Commons. He is missing a good session.

When the House refers a bill to a committee, it is so the committee can assess it and make amendments, and that is what we're doing. That is the first thing. This is not a cheap shot. It's what he said. He also told us he is visiting and finds this entertaining. I don't find the situation of homeless people at all entertaining. I don't take it lightly, here or anywhere.

Mr. Chair, I come to Mr. Komarnicki's question, because I think he asked a good question. He asked whether the other provinces could also have the right to opt out. However, the fact is that they have never requested it.

The House of Commons has recognized that we are a nation, with the attributes of a nation, let us hope. Those attributes are not always visible. Quebec, not the Bloc but all of the parties in the National Assembly, unanimously, have made the political choice that it will have full powers and full jurisdiction, as recognized in the Constitution, to take responsibility for social housing.

I have never heard Mr. Komarnicki or his colleagues say they wanted the same thing for Ontario or Manitoba or other provinces. That's up to you, you are entitled, it's your choice and we respect it. If there is anything we respect, it is your political choices. They may be described as right-wing, but we pass no judgment on those choices. It's up to you.

In our case, however, it is not our choice and that is not the recognition we have historically been given. As well, Quebec's historical request is not what appears in the bill.

However, I would not want to do to Bill C-304... I think the opposition considers it to be very important. It is not perfect. We want to give it the potential to be adopted, at least by the opposition. It is the basis for an amendment.

I find it unfortunate, however, that something as irresponsible as systematic obstruction of the work we are doing on Bill C-304 would be done here. I think it would be completely irresponsible, just as I would think it was irresponsible if we did it on Bill C-56.

The government asked us to expedite our work on Bill C-56. We did that and I think it is also important to expedite work on Bill C-304. If we are given substantive arguments, we will deal with them. But making arguments as frivolous as saying that it's entertaining is not acceptable. That kind of argument amounts to systematic obstruction.

Thank you.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to listen to the debate when it commenced and a couple of items did strike my attention.

We are dealing, as we know, with Bill C-56. I believe this bill in principle has the support of the House, being passed at second reading and because it provides special benefits on an opt-in basis under the employment insurance system to self-employed persons.

I listened to the minister introduce the bill and I thought that the minister carefully framed the issue before us when she said that Canadians should not have to choose between the family and their business responsibilities. We all know that many people choose self-employment because it gives them the flexibility to take care of family responsibilities. Some are self-employed because they have lost their jobs but still have to work, and they have to scramble to make ends meet. There are a variety of other circumstances that may put people in situations where they must be self-employed.

The employment insurance system provides benefits for employed persons who, for a variety of reasons, may have to leave their jobs to get benefits. In addition to those, though, there are a number of special benefits that are attached. I have a particular interest in this act, because one of those benefits has to do with maternity leave under EI. Some years ago I was very pleased to be able, through one of my private member's bills, to get maternity and parental leave benefits extended to a full year from the then six months. I believe that particular change to the EI Act was very well received by Canadians. I would note that in France now, maternity and parental leave benefits are for a full two years, recognizing the research and studies done on head starts for children and how important it is that parents have the opportunity to determine when is the right time for their child to access day care or child care, or when the child needs their parents to be home. The bill will go part way in that regard for self-employed persons. However, I fear it will probably not be enough and I hope that we will be pursuing this area of benefits for families with children. For me, it is so very, very important for families with children.

The minister also wanted to advise the House that self-employed workers in Canada are often the innovators in our economy. They are people who contribute their creativity, courage and capital in pursuit of a better life. They strengthen our communities, and it is the communities that make a strong country.

The minister also wanted to inform us that there are 2.6 million Canadians who are self-employed, and they account for about 15% of the working population. It is clear that this segment of our population faces circumstances that many people do not, or will never in their lifetimes, but it provides specific challenges. The difference for the self-employed is the fact that if they do not go to work or do the work, they do not get paid. There is a lot of work involved, but people make this sacrifice because it provides them with the flexibility to, among other things, make sure that the needs of their family, particularly their children, are taken care of.

Self-employed workers have been asking for these benefits for a very, very long period of time. The case has been well made, and self-employed Canadians do come from a broad range of situations and incomes. Some are professionals, scientists or technicians. They could be tradespeople or retailers, or they could simply be involved in a very small business where they are taking advantage of certain skill sets or abilities they have to provide goods and services. Thus it is an important segment of our economy that we really need to address.

About one-third of all self-employed women are also of child-bearing age, and many of them are choosing self-employment because it does provide the flexibility to combine a career with the responsibilities of raising a family. Obviously in these tough economic times, self-employment does offer a way for laid-off workers to stay active in the labour market and do their share in our economic recovery and, of course, to provide for their families.

Finally, with regard to the minister's comments, I thought that overall, the special benefits for the self-employed would mirror those of salaried employees. Under the EI program, the contributions and benefits for the self-employed would be comparable whether earnings came from self-employment, salaried employment, or a mix of the two; but clearly the overall goal was to make these special benefits for the self-employed the same as those for salaried employees, recognizing that some adjustments might be necessary. Those in fact have come to light in some of the statements made this morning and by the member for Laval—Les Îles, who raised the issue at the commencement of third reading.

In looking at the bill, I found it difficult to go through it because it has consequential amendments to a number of acts. There are also a number of exceptions. For instance, if one is self-employed and ill and wants to receive benefits, there is going to be a test whether one would be classified as self-employed without that illness. That is as simply as I can state it, but if we look at that in the act, it is not as clear as it would seem to indicate.

From the various conditions and exceptions, it looks as if there will be cases where it is going to subject to interpretation, and I only wish that this had been a little simpler. I wish the bill had been more focused on the requirements of people accessing these benefits and that it had relied more heavily on regulations, which allow a government the flexibility to make modifications by using formulas and regulations or by listing the certain kinds of things that would be there.

When we start to put everything in the bill and try to craft editorial remarks or prose around what our intent is, there is a risk of missing something. As I indicated earlier in response to the question by the previous speaker, we are at third reading now. This bill has received approval in principle and it cannot be changed in its macro sense. We can tweak it, but the only way to tweak it at third reading is either to refer it back to committee, or to pass it at third reading and let it go to the Senate and maybe it can help to clarify the bill or, if necessary, correct a problem.

Since these benefits subject to a voluntary opt-in will not kick in for a year, I guess there is time to deal with it in an amending piece of legislation, if we could do that. However, I have to say that when I looked at the minutes of the committee meeting, I appreciated what members had been saying about rushing through proposed amendments. As I read this last night, I see that it took a long time for the committee members to grasp the points that were being made in some of the amendments. There seemed to be a little too much pressure to deal with it quickly and get it out of committee.

That is a risk committees take when they simply take things on their face value. I say this with regard to the issue the previous speaker raised in the House, and also the member for Laval—Les Îles, because there seems to be a problem with the benefits and the premiums proposed for residents of Quebec.

Bill C-56 would amend the act to establish a mechanism to provide payment of special benefits, not the labour-related EI benefits that one can get as a salaried employee if one loses a job. There are other things, including maternity benefits, sickness benefits, compassionate care benefits, and parental or adoptive benefits. These are important to Canadians. We have a system that I believe provides adequately for those who are salaried, but not for self-employed persons.

In all provinces other than Quebec, these kinds of special benefits are not provided by provincial governments. Someone who wishes to have such coverage would have to get it through private insurance.

The Province of Quebec is different. The Province of Quebec already provides some of these benefits, which are included in the provincial tax on residents of Quebec. These benefits are extended to Quebec residents, but they have a real cost for the people in Quebec.

However, in looking at the discussion in committee and also at the representations of previous speakers, there seems to be something wrong. If we compare what benefits someone would get in another province of Canada if he or she opted into this plan with the ones that he or she would need, the differential in the premium a self-employed individual in Quebec would pay and someone in any other province does not seem to match up clearly with what one would reasonably expect in terms of a pro rata cost per $100 of earnings. That is an issue that some members have raised.

We have a situation where the standard of fairness and equity does not seem to have been met for all persons in all regions. Ensuring so is one of our critical responsibilities.

I am not going to go into the mechanics of the premiums, but just so that members are aware, I will say that self-employed workers in Quebec already have access to Government of Quebec benefits for parental leave, sick leave and compassionate leave to care for family. This means that self-employed workers in Quebec should not have to pay the same premiums as Canadians in other provinces, because they already receive some of these benefits, not from the Government of Canada but from the Government of Quebec. Therefore, it seems clear to us that the calculations have to reflect that.

I do not have the precise numbers, but let me give the House a broad indication of them. Since Quebec already has a parental insurance program, all regular employees and self-employed Quebeckers pay into that plan. In recognition of that fact, the general employee EI premium is $1.38 per $100 of income in Quebec versus $1.73 in the rest of Canada. Because Quebec has a provincial plan that overlaps what is otherwise available in EI and the residents of Quebec are already paying for these benefits, the current EI premium structure reflects that reality. Thus we can see the differential in premiums, taking into account the cost of programs that Quebeckers already have.

Under this new bill, self-employed Quebeckers would pay the same $1.38 in premiums. That just does not make sense. If they already have some of the special benefits, why would they pay the same premium after this bill passes as they pay now before it is passed?

Apparently the government has not taken into account in the bill the fact that there is this exception. It is a clear exception. It is not debatable; it is a fact.

Something needs to be done. I asked a government member where the government got the numbers. I think it was the parliamentary secretary who responded that the premium that is going to be charged to Quebeckers is going to be lower than the charge from private insurers. That may be true.

It depends, however, on what assumptions we make about the group which has been covered under a private insurer. It depends on the size, stability and all other good things. I have been involved a little in employee benefits. I am pretty sure I could go to different areas of the insurance system and find a range of premiums based on what one must take or cannot take or cannot opt in, and maybe a plan will not even be customized.

I am not sure it is good enough to say that it is generally lower than what private insurers charge. We need to be more specific. It has to recognize how much it costs for the benefits they already get, and if the premium is going to be adjusted, the cost should probably be deducted. We know what the cost is. There is another way to come at it, from the reverse side rather than to try to build it up.

I wanted to raise that because I do not like to see us get into these situations where a bill is at third reading and it is very awkward, cumbersome and maybe unacceptable for the government to move in one of the directions to make a change now. It would appear to me that there is time, because this program is voluntary, people can opt in, and benefits cannot be claimed until they have been in the program for a full year.

I urge the Minister of Human Resources and the parliamentary secretary to go back and look at what the experts and the witnesses have said. People have expressed a sincere concern. It is about fairness and equity for all Canadians in all regions. In the case of this bill, it would appear that is not the case.

I want to thank the hon. members who have raised this issue. It gave me an opportunity to look at it. I agree with them wholeheartedly that there have to be some changes here, simply from the standpoint of fairness and equity.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here this morning to discuss Bill C-56, to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

The Bloc Québécois simply cannot support this bill because, once again, Quebeckers will be paying for the rest of Canada.

We are used to paying for the rest of Canada. We have always paid. We have paid for Alberta's tar sands development because the federal government, with our taxes, has injected money into this sector. We have also paid for various Canadian structures. Now we will be paying once again to improve the employment insurance fund, which soon will be in the red.

The Bloc Québécois really cannot support this bill because it will penalize Quebec's self-employed workers. My colleagues in this House really have to think about that. Once again, the self-employed workers of Quebec will pay for measures that they can already access practically free of charge and will pay for those workers who do not have access to them. That is insulting.

This bill amends the Employment Insurance Act to establish a scheme that will pay special benefits to self-employed persons. The bill will amend certain sections on special benefits. We do not agree with this.

These special benefits are maternity benefits for a maximum of 15 weeks. As for parental or adoptive benefits, Quebec already offers these two types of benefits. We want to be clear about this: in Quebec we already pay for these benefits. Therefore, we do not need the benefits that will be included under employment insurance. Sickness and compassionate care benefits are acceptable.

The bill will give the self-employed voluntary access to special employment insurance benefits. Their premiums will be based on their tax returns. They will need to have earned a minimum of $6,000 over the preceding calendar year to be entitled to benefits equal to 55% of their income. They will have to opt into the program one year prior to claiming benefits. For example, they will have to sign up in 2009 to receive benefits in 2010, and contribute for one year before having access to these benefits.

We have been told that this measure could be in place in 2010 with benefits based on the previous year's income, which would allow self-employed workers to sign up now.

However, once self-employed workers receive special benefits they must continue to pay premiums and cannot opt out. Of course, they will not be paying regular employee premiums.

Self-employed workers in Canada will pay $1.73 per $100 in insurable earnings to have access to the four measures. Self-employed workers in Quebec will pay $1.36 per $100 in insurable earnings to have access to two measures, which are the least expensive ones for the government.

It is as though I had four candies: one for $1, one for $2, one for 50¢ and another for 50¢. I make a deal and sell them for $2. But I keep the first two candies in my pocket. So you end up paying $2 for two candies worth 50¢. It is exactly the same thing.

What is shocking and insulting is that the government did not take into account that Quebec is proactive and already has measures to protect our self-employed workers. If they want to be fair and equitable, they should take that into account.

I hear my colleagues asking questions in the House and saying that this is a historic bill we could amend. But there is nothing historic about this bill, since Quebec has always paid for the rest of Canada.

My colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities tried to amend the bill, but no amendments ever passed. An actuary came to explain to the committee how it worked in Quebec, but they were not interested in listening. That is insulting and shocking.

Then, they try to say that the Bloc Québécois is against the bill simply because it is always against everything. Come on. My colleagues need to open their eyes. We have to fix this bill and come back to it, because it is unfair to Quebeckers.

Quebec is unique because the CSST provides some protection for our self-employed workers. It does not make sense that Quebec should always be forced to foot the bill for services provided and measures implemented elsewhere. Self-employed Quebec workers need to know that they are being taken for a ride. Let me be the one to say that this is a dirty trick. My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I will unmask this bill. Why should we have to pay more than anyone else for our penny candy?

In committee, the Bloc Québécois was not very keen on this bill. When the federal government offers what it calls social measures to the rest of Canada, there is always a catch when it comes to Quebec. This is further proof of that. The Bloc Québécois tried to amend the bill, but did not succeed.

Moreover, Liberal and NDP members from Quebec are going to vote for this bill. When will it end? They are going to steal the shirts right off of Quebeckers' backs. That is why this bill is so bad for Quebec. I am quite sure that Quebeckers will not forget this.

This is not unlike what happened with the gun registry. Once again, Quebeckers are falling through the cracks. So many of these bills seem to suggest that the rest of Canada expects Quebec to just suck it up and do as it is told.

I do not want Quebec to be a region. My region—my country—is Quebec, and Quebec is proactive when it comes to implementing social measures well before all of the other provinces.

I have no problem with anyone wanting to copy Quebec's social measures, but it is not right to make Quebec pay the price for the government's failure to come up with its own good ideas.They should have brought in measures to protect self-employed workers a long time ago, like Quebec did. I do not want to pay for the rest of Canada.

I have nothing against them bringing in social measures elsewhere, but I do not want them to tell Quebeckers to foot the bill when the rest of Canada never pays for measures in Quebec. On the contrary, we fight for those measures.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will share my time regarding Bill C-56 with the member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

When the government introduced Bill C-56 to make it possible for self-employed workers to receive special benefits, we were generally in favour of it. It is an idea that the Bloc Québécois has defended for a long time, that self-employed workers should have access to the employment insurance system, with some restrictions, of course. We imagined it would be much more inclusive, but this seems to be a step in the right direction. That is why we voted in favour of the bill at second reading, to refer it to a committee to be examined further.

Right from the start, however, we felt that the amount of $1.36 for every $100, which is not explicitly stated in the bill, was excessive. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, through the Minister of National Revenue, announced that self-employed workers in Quebec would be asked to contribute $1.36 for every $100 of insurable earnings. Self-employed workers, especially women in Quebec, already have access to parental leave, which was implemented by the Parti Québécois some years ago. This program is very successful, and is partly responsible for the rather impressive and reassuring increase in the fertility rate in Quebec.

We therefore had some apprehensions, but once again, as I said, we wanted to give the government a chance, so we sent the bill to committee. Our fears quickly proved to be well founded. This premium of $1.36 per $100 would be used for two types of benefits: sickness benefits and compassionate care benefits. I would remind the House that we are talking about 15 weeks in the case of sickness benefits and six weeks in the case of compassionate care, if I remember correctly, so these are fairly minimal benefits. In my opinion, very few male and especially female workers in Quebec are going to enrol in this system at a cost of $1.36, even though enrolment is voluntary. As responsible legislators, we cannot accept this approach.

Consequently, in committee, we tried to amend the bill to ensure that the contribution rate for self-employed workers in Quebec would be fair, given the new coverage they were being offered. Moreover, the amendment was designed so that if another jurisdiction in Canada were to offer benefits such as parental or maternity leave or sickness or compassionate care benefits, there would be a formula to reflect that reality and prevent these self-employed workers from having to pay twice for the same type of coverage, either now or in the future.

We tried to debate this in committee, but the Liberals unfortunately did not see things our way, so we will be forced to vote against Bill C-56 at third reading.

In addition, the former EI chief actuary, Michel Bédard, took it upon himself to provide us with his assessment of what the contribution rate should be for self-employed workers in Quebec. He sent an email to my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, basing his calculations on the cost of these special benefits. We are talking about roughly $1 billion for parental or maternity leave. The rest was for compassionate care and sickness benefits. I would like to quote his conclusion:

Quebeckers should pay a contribution rate of $0.41 per $100 under Bill C-56 for sickness benefits. A rate of $1.36 per $100 would clearly be excessive.

The former actuary said that. If I recall correctly, he served in that position from 1991 to 2003, so he has the expertise to make the necessary calculations.

That amount also takes into account system administration costs. The amount the government announced is over three times too high given the new coverage it will be offering to self-employed Quebec workers. We do not want to have anything to do with a Conservative government plan that verges on usurious.

That is why we will vote against this bill. If the bill passes, the Bloc Québécois will take it upon itself to make sure self-employed workers in Quebec know that this plan is a rip-off.

We have to look at things from a broader perspective. We have to say no to this bill because it is just a way to get money from workers whose income is already, for the most part, relatively low. But we think that this scheme is just cover for a Conservative government agenda to bring down the deficit, which is growing on a monthly basis because of the ongoing economic crisis and the recession, which have resulted in lower revenue and higher spending.

Basically, a review of the Minister of Finance's latest documents clearly reveals that the Conservative government will once again use the employment insurance fund as a cash cow to fight the deficit. That is the agenda behind Bill C-56, and we will not stand for it. We did not stand for it when Paul Martin's Liberals used the employment insurance fund—premiums collected from workers and employers, including small and medium businesses—for purposes other than those for which the money was collected.

The Minister of Finance's documents are very clear: over the next few years, more than $15 billion will be taken out of the fund to pad the government's coffers. We find that deeply unfair and unproductive. Everyone knows that employment insurance premiums are an employment tax.

Proportionally speaking, what kind of businesses hire the most workers? Small and medium businesses. That is why this bill will perpetrate an injustice not only on workers, but also on the entrepreneurs who create the most jobs in our economy. That is especially true for Quebec.

We refuse to be complicit in another misappropriation of the employment insurance fund for other purposes. I would also remind the House that the Liberal government diverted somewhere between $55 million and $57 million for other purposes. Furthermore, two-thirds of the money used to pay down the deficit and create a surplus came from the employment insurance fund, and the rest came from unilateral cutbacks in federal transfers to the provinces. If memory serves, there was a surplus of approximately $67 billion from 1998 until the end of the Liberal reign.

We are now witnessing the same scenario. It is a case of déjà vu. We simply cannot support this completely unfair practice. It is unwarranted, because there are other ways to balance the budget. Bill C-56 demonstrates the Conservative government's willingness to use the employment insurance fund to tackle the deficit. It has other means at its disposal. Perhaps those means may require public debates. Perhaps it is easier for them to use, in an underhanded way, the EI fund and the premiums that workers and employers have to pay. Maybe this prevents them from having to hold public debates.

That said, it would be in line with the Conservative way, which involves concealing information and imposing its vision for socio-economic development. And I am not even talking about environmental and cultural decay.

By stating here today that we will vote against Bill C-56, we are sending a clear message that we do not agree with this method of tackling the deficit.

As I said, there are other ways, including taxation measures, for example, particularly in the highest tax brackets. We have seen some bureaucratic spending and spending on federal government propaganda, which have been of no use whatsoever, either economically and socially. Our finance critic presented a plan a few weeks ago.

Accordingly, it will come as no surprise that we cannot accept this bill and that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-56.

The house resumed from December 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts be read the third time and passed.

Committees of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised, actually, with an experienced parliamentarian like my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst in respect to the fact that he knows as well as I do, or at least he should know, that contained in Bill C-56 is the provision that those self-employed Canadians who want to gain EI benefits have to opt in, but a year has to go by before they are able to do that.

Every day that we prevent this legislation from passing is one more day that self-employed Canadians are denied EI benefits. We have to get this done. We want to get this done before year end, so that come January 1, 2010, people can start opting into this program. The member should know that.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. It is a good question.

Quite frankly, even if we had adjourned debate on the concurrence motion, this concurrence motion still would have come to a vote sometime early in the new year. We are not quashing the rights of any members to deal with this and have a vote on the concurrence of that report.

What it does do, what the NDP has effectively done, is delay the government's opportunity to bring forward legislation by three hours. We are nearing the end of our parliamentary session before we break for Christmas and for New Year's.

We want to get some of the legislation that Canadians are so concerned about, such as Bill C-56, the ability to give self-employed Canadians employment insurance benefits, down to the Senate to try to get it enacted as quickly as possible. The NDP and their colleagues opposite are delaying that attempt by this government to help Canadians.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South is quite correct in one aspect, that it is a right of a member to bring forward a motion for concurrence. I do not deny that. I am talking about the motivation behind why he brought it forward today. The member himself admitted that he has had this motion on the books for months. Why did he not deal with it earlier if it is that important to him?

I would also point out to the member for Mississauga South, who said this really does not stop anything from happening and we will still have a vote today, quite correctly, that the plans were to dispense with the government's initiatives this morning so that we could get to Bill C-56 this afternoon, which is entirely within our purview to do, so that we could hopefully dispense with that bill and get it down the hall to the Senate.

In effect, proceedings on government orders are being delayed by three hours, thereby delaying Bill C-56, an initiative to bring employment insurance benefits to self-employed Canadians.

If the member wants to stand up and defend why he is in agreement with delaying the fact that we want to get that bill passed through the House and to the Senate as quickly as possible, let him stand and defend his position on that.

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I do not have much time, I would like to get straight to the point regarding Bill C-56 to amend the Employment Insurance Act, to establish a scheme to provide for the payment of special benefits to self-employed persons who are not currently entitled to receive them. This includes maternity, sickness, and compassionate care benefits, and parental or adoptive benefits.

It is clear to us on this side of the House that this bill is extremely important for a large part of the population, especially for women who work. For example, we know that many women have to work several jobs, even if they are self employed, and we know they face serious problems, such as a lack of income support during periods of unemployment or an economic downturn. We know that self-employed female workers are often forced to quit their jobs when they are sick, and therefore have no income.

We also know—and I am skipping many parts of my speech—that it is women who traditionally care for children, although many men now help, and it is also women who care for their aging parents. This bill, which aims to help self-employed workers by providing sickness benefits and compassionate care benefits, should therefore provide some welcome relief. However, I would like to remind the House that last week, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, we came up against a very important fiscal problem. We learned that this creates a very serious problem for Quebec. I will explain.

Self-employed workers in Quebec already have access to Government of Quebec benefits for parental leave, sick leave and compassionate leave to care for family. This means that, naturally, in the government's calculations for this bill, self-employed workers in Quebec should not have to pay the same premiums as other Canadians, because they already receive part of those benefits, not from the Government of Canada, but from the Government of Quebec. So it seems clear to us that the calculation that was reported to us in committee was incorrect.

Since I do not have much time left, I will simply ask the government to review the situation based on the actuarial forecasts, to look at the contribution rates for Quebeckers under Bill C-56, particularly for sickness benefits, and to have a serious look at the figures. The Liberals will vote in favour of Bill C-56, but I want to be clear: we are urging the government to check its figures and to fix them if necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, concerning self-employed workers.

I would like to begin by saying, as I have said during other speeches on the subject, that I toured the country to meet with workers across Canada. I went to Gaspé, to Montreal, and to Rivière-aux-Renards. I should mention to the member for Saint-Lambert that her riding is a very beautiful place. I visited all of the provinces—Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and so on—and I went all the way to Vancouver.

That was back in 1999. The Liberals were elected in 1997. I want to emphasize that because earlier, the Liberal member said that the Liberals were the ones who worked on the self-employed workers file. In 1999, I made a proposal to the House of Commons. I would like to read from the record:

The EI program, as it exists, does not take market realities into account. More workers are described as “self-employed”, which is not quite the case. A growing number of businesses are laying off people and then hiring them as self-employed workers in order to avoid having to contribute to EI or to a pension plan. Self-employed workers are not entitled to EI and are practically without social protection. We must take a closer look at what is really happening on the new labour market and explore ways to help so-called self-employed workers contribute to and benefit from the system.

I gave that speech quite a while ago. The NDP will support the bill currently before the House of Commons. In my opinion, it is time to support our self-employed workers, such as artists in Canada and Quebec, hairdressers in Canada and Quebec, and massage therapists, to name but a few. There are countless other categories of self-employed workers who need our help too.

Consider for example parental leave or sick leave. A hairdresser from my riding came to my office and asked how she could take advantage of the employment insurance system. She is a young woman who would like to start a family, but since she is self employed, she will not receive anything. She does not have the financial resources to start a family.

Finally, a bill has been introduced here in the House of Commons today. This bill aims to support people who need maternity leave or parental leave.

I applaud Quebec, which has had a program like this for several years now. It is time for the rest of Canada to have the same thing, through the employment insurance program. This is what people want. Some of the witnesses we heard from in committee even suggested having a separate fund, apart from employment insurance. We heard various proposals in committee.

The unfortunate thing is that the Conservative government introduced a bill for long-tenured workers without allowing us to make any amendments. It is all or nothing, which is unfortunate. Why bother having a Parliament and parliamentary committees and examining bills if the government refuses to be open to amendments and refuses to listen to the people?

This is how Parliament normally works. The government introduces a bill, which is studied in a parliamentary committee. For example, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities would study the bill. The parliamentary committees' raison d'être is to allow Canadians and Quebeckers the opportunity to testify before the committee and share ideas that could inspire changes in order to create a better bill.

But the Conservative government arrived with an all or nothing proposal. Can we call that democracy? The government will say yes to avoid saying no. If we say no, we are saying no to all those workers who would have had a chance to have a program to help them.

I find that a bit sad. That is their business. The Bloc Québécois wants to vote against this bill. The Bloc members will do what they want, but I am sad for the workers in Quebec, the hairdressers and massage therapists and all those people.

Artists, whom we defended so ardently in the last election, will not be able to decide themselves whether they want to contribute. This is a voluntary program. We have to give other Canadians the opportunity to have it. We can do this together. People should exert pressure. I am sure that the Government of Quebec would know how to tell the Government of Canada that its premiums are too high and should be reduced, as they have been in the case of parental and maternity benefits. It is true that they pay lower premiums than others because part of the program already exists in Quebec.

I sympathize with what members are saying today, but I believe that the bill should be passed.

The government has also truly closed its mind to any change. The reality is that this program is going to cost money. According to the figures we have, there will be a $48 million surplus in 2010. I do not know whether it is million or billion, but it makes no difference, it is still money. We are talking about $57 billion. There will be a $48 million surplus with this program, because in the first year, 2010, people will pay into the system, but will not get any money in return, because they will not be entitled to receive benefits until 2011.

In 2011, a $24 million deficit is anticipated. In 2012, the deficit will be $39 million. In 2013, it will be $56 million, and in 2014, $78 million. These are the figures we have been given.

That is why we proposed that within six months of the coming into force of this part, the minister appoint a group of experts to study the effect and application of this part, or this act. Every year for a period of five years, the group of experts would consult the Canadian public and present to the House of Commons and the Senate a report of its findings and recommendations.

We are not asking for the world. We are just saying there is a new program, we are willing to vote in favour of it, but we just want to be sure there is follow-up to see if we are on the right track. This was supported by the Canadian Labour Congress. It was refused by the government. The Conservatives completely rejected this proposal. They said we needed royal assent. The answer therefore was no.

We asked for something else. I think this should be addressed. They say they want to help self-employed workers. That is what the government was saying earlier. I was listening carefully to the parliamentary secretary, who was saying that her government wanted to help self-employed workers. If that is the case, we had another proposal for being fair to those workers and supporting them.

I was saying earlier that the labour market has changed and that today there are more self-employed workers than ever. There are even more today than there were in 1999.

We made another proposal. Self-employed workers are not entitled to regular benefits. They are not entitled to receive regular employment insurance benefits. That is what it says in the act. Let us say that for more than a year, the worker earned 95% of his income from just one client.

An employee who is fired because his employer wants to avoid paying him benefits, and who is subsequently retained as a self-employed worker, should be recognized as a regular worker for the purposes of employment insurance, and be entitled to benefits, if he has worked 95% of the time for that employer. In this case, the commission would consider it to be equivalent to an employer-employee relationship.

Once again, the Conservatives said no. And yet they claim they want to help the self-employed.

There are two things that would have truly helped the self-employed. The latter are asking that a task force, in the next five years, report to both Houses given that the cost will increase. Even self-employed workers stated that they were not aware it would be so costly. It will cost them $78 million in the next five years. They would like to be given the facts and hear what we have to recommend.

We wanted to amend the bill in order to allow a self-employed worker who worked 95% of the time for a single client to be considered a regular worker. We are not talking about 50% or 25% of the time. If he were to lose his job, he should be entitled to employment insurance benefits.

Once again the Conservatives said no. I find that unfortunate. We have to adapt to the new labour market.

That is clear in the government report. It states that, in 2008, 2.6 million Canadians declared they were self-employed. For a vast majority, it is their sole source of income. That is a large number of people. It means that 2.6 million Canadians and Quebeckers do not have a safety net if they lose their employment, even during an economic crisis such as the current one.

The Conservative government would like Canadians and also Quebeckers to believe that the program they are presenting is the best in the world. It has overlooked a fair number of things. We must do more.

Earlier the Liberals were bragging about the fact that they were trying to help self-employed workers. They were in power for 13 years. From 1999 to 2005, they had enough time to implement a program, but they did not.

When a bill was introduced in the House of Commons to consider the best 12 weeks for workers, the Liberals, while they were in power, voted against that measure. Now that they form the opposition, they are saying that the 80% of women in the workforce benefit the least from employment insurance when they are the ones who need it the most.

Only 32% of women are eligible for employment insurance because the Liberals made major cuts to the program in 1996, when they were in power. That is when they decided that to be eligible for employment insurance, a person needed to have 910 hours of employment. They are the ones who have prevented a great number of women from being eligible for employment insurance.

The Liberal member said that, at the time, the economy was doing well and that only about 6% of the workforce was receiving employment insurance benefits. If the economy was doing well, then why did they make cuts to the employment insurance program?

When they made those cuts, the economy may have been doing well in Toronto, but it was not doing well in Atlantic Canada. Fish plants were closing and there were other closures in the forestry industry. There were closures everywhere. That is when the loggers had to leave the forest.

Back in the days of Liberal spending cuts, the unemployment rate out east was around 20%. They could not have cared less about people in the Atlantic provinces.

Better yet, a former Liberal minister—my predecessor, as it happens—told the Globe and Mail that the government would tame Atlantic Canadians. He called them shiftless and lazy. The Conservative member from Nova Scotia said something similar a few weeks ago—or was it last week—when he said that lazy, no-good bastards in Halifax do not want to work. That was almost the same thing. The Conservatives and the Liberals have the same attitude toward workers.

Today, the government said that it would freeze employment insurance contributions until 2011. But look out, because in 2011, rates will go up. In 2011, there will still be a $57 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, a surplus that was stolen by the Liberals and the Conservatives. There is money in the employment insurance fund. It is not as though it is empty.

Why will premiums have to go up in 2011 despite the surplus in the employment insurance fund? It is funny to hear them talk. The Liberals dipped into the fund and spent the money over a series of budgets. The government paid off $92 billion of the national debt, but $57 billion of that was taken from workers who lost their jobs.

The Conservatives say that the Liberals were the ones who did it. But they cannot lay all of the blame at the Liberals' feet, because they have been in power since 2006. Who passed the bill in the House of Commons? There is a new commission, but it is only getting $2 billion. The Conservatives passed the bill, but the Liberals were the ones who supported it.

In the end, both parties stole the $57 billion because they legalized the theft. That is what happened. In last year's budget, $2 billion was deposited in the employment insurance fund. Now they say that it will not be enough come 2011. They say that they will have to raise contribution rates and make workers pay yet again for the debt acquired by the two parties that were in power.

They could do something else to help workers in Quebec and Canada. For example, the employment insurance calculation could be changed to be based on the 12 best weeks. Better yet, it should not even have a divisor, because under the EI regulations individuals already receive only 55% of their income in benefits. Even if an individual earned $1,000 a week, the 55% calculation would not be based on the $1,000, but on an amount of approximately $750. So the individual would only receive 55% of that amount.

A motion was moved in the House of Commons regarding the 12 best weeks, but once again, the Liberals and Conservatives voted against this motion, just as they voted against a bill for a 360 hour threshold when it was introduced.

Maybe one day workers—if there are any watching us at home—will realize that the Liberals and Conservatives are not their friends. Maybe one day they will realize. They will say that they are not receiving EI benefits because the Liberals and Conservatives made cuts.

They would have us believe that someone who goes to the employment insurance office to receive EI benefits does not want to work. I think that is shameful and unacceptable in our society.

In France, employment insurance recipients receive 75% of their income. The Government of France says that it pays that percentage because it is the workers' employment insurance program, and it injects money into the economy and the community. It does not label those people as lazy slackers, as the Conservatives and Liberals do. It does not do that.

The NDP will support this bill, but we believe it does not go far enough. Other changes need to be made to EI, and the $57 billion must be handed back over to the workers who have lost their jobs. It should not go to paying down the government's deficit.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act.

I should say at the outset that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill. I do not think that will surprise anyone, in light of the questions I have been asking the past few days. Although we were absolutely in favour of the principle originally behind this bill, we cannot support it, because it would be blatantly unfair for self-employed workers in Quebec. The Liberals and the New Democrats can see this unfairness, but have not bothered to speak out against it. On the contrary, they have endorsed it.

Let us have a look at some of the aspects of Bill C-56. This bill would allow self-employed workers to be eligible for special EI benefits: maternity benefits, to a maximum of 15 weeks; parental or adoption benefits, to a maximum of 35 weeks; sickness benefits, to a maximum of 15 weeks; and compassionate care benefits, to a maximum of 6 weeks.

Contrary to what the Bloc Québécois called for, this bill does not enable self-employed workers to have access to regular employment insurance benefits, but only special benefits. That is important. I believe that self-employed workers themselves understand what this bill means for them. This bill will be implemented on a voluntary basis. Self-employed workers will voluntarily enrol and contribute. They will have to earn a minimum of $6,000 in the calendar year preceding their claim to be entitled to 55% of their income. They will have to enrol when they file their income tax return for 2009 in order to have access to benefits the following year. Consequently, a self-employed worker will have to have contributed for a whole year before he or she can access these benefits.

We cannot support the bill because of the contribution rate that has been set for self-employed workers in Quebec: $1.36 per $100 of earnings. Allow me to explain. Bill C-56 proposes to allow self-employed workers to contribute voluntarily to the employment insurance system. However, unlike salaried workers, they would be entitled only to so-called special benefits, which, as I said earlier, include maternity and parental benefits, sickness benefits and compassionate care benefits.

Since Quebec already has a mandatory parental insurance plan for both salaried and self-employed workers, it goes without saying that Quebec must receive some sort of compensation to reflect the fact that self-employed workers there cannot receive the same benefits as Canadian workers. Moreover, salaried workers in Quebec already pay lower EI premiums because they also pay into Quebec's parental insurance plan.

To come up with the reduced contribution rate, the chief actuary of the employment insurance commission makes a relatively simple calculation that he publishes each year in his annual report on the break-even contribution rate and the maximum insurable earnings for EI. This calculation is as follows: the actuary calculates the portion of expenditures that pertains to parental insurance leave. This portion is then subtracted from the contributions Quebec workers are required to make.

The reduction is direct and based on a calculation, which means that the compensation accurately reflects the portion of expenditures that pertains to maternity and paternity benefits. This is a fair and equitable way to set the contribution rate for Quebec workers.

But in the case of Bill C-56, the government is completely ignoring this logic and proposing a totally excessive and abusive contribution rate for self-employed workers in Quebec.

For some reason, the government has decided to ask self-employed workers to pay exactly the same premium as salaried workers, even though they are not entitled to the same benefits. In other words—and I think all my colleagues here know it—salaried workers receive compassionate care and sick leave benefits, but also regular employment insurance benefits. However, self-employed workers, as I was just saying, will only get special benefits. They will not receive regular benefits, but they are being asked to pay the same premium.

Salaried employees and self-employed workers will pay into the same fund. That seems illogical for the reasons I just mentioned.

That means that Canadian self-employed workers will pay $1.73 in premiums, which would allow them to receive the three so-called special benefits. Self-employed workers in Quebec will have to pay $1.36, but those premiums will allow them to receive just two of the three special benefits. It just so happens that those two benefits are by far the least expensive. If I am not mistaken, the compassionate care and sick leave special benefits represent roughly 25% of the cost, whereas parental leave benefits represent 75%.

It took the working group some time to get answers to its questions on Bill C-56. Nonetheless, according to the estimates that were finally forwarded to us by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, maternity leave benefits will probably represent 70% of the cost of this new plan for the employment insurance system. You do not need a math degree to know that by paying $1.36, or 79% of what Canadian self-employed workers will pay, Quebeckers are being had.

In other words, Quebeckers are being asked to provide 19% of the funding for the plan, but, according to the department's numbers, they will collect only 6% of the benefits. That is scandalous.

We all agree that it makes sense for insurance plans to spread the risk. That is a basic principle of insurance. Insurance of all kinds is a risk-sharing endeavour that requires all beneficiaries to assume a portion of the risk because they cannot predict what events might cause them to lose their income for one reason or another. What we take issue with, however, is the disparity between how self-employed Canadian workers are treated and how self-employed Quebec workers are treated. The Canadian portion of the plan will result in a huge deficit at a contribution rate of $1.73, while the Quebec portion will produce a huge surplus at a contribution rate of $1.36.

It is expected that the Quebec portion of the sickness and compassionate care benefits, the only benefits to which self-employed Quebec workers will be entitled, will cost some $22 million in 2014, whereas premiums collected from Quebec will amount to $45 million. In contrast, in Canada, also in 2014, benefit payouts will be on the order of $280 million and premiums, $178 million. In other words, the government is asking self-employed Quebec workers to absorb the deficit for self-employed Canadian workers.

Of course we believe that is unfair. And we are not the only ones. We asked Michel Bédard, who was the departmental chief actuary for over 12 years, to provide an estimate of what he considered to be a fair contribution rate for self-employed Quebec workers. As it turned out, Mr. Bédard confirmed our initial suspicions. The contribution rate to be imposed on Quebeckers will be outrageously high, and the return they get will be ridiculously low.

That is why the Bloc Québécois cannot support this bill.

We know that, generally speaking, this government's employment insurance measures in no way meet the needs of Quebeckers. I said so yesterday and I will say it again: the program for long-tenured workers does not apply to Quebec forestry workers. The additional five weeks are a temporary measure. Self-employed workers in Quebec already had access to parental leave, and the contribution rate for compassionate care and sickness benefits is three times what the rest of Canada will pay. So there is a serious problem regarding employment insurance.

We now realize that it is Quebeckers who are always paying for others, although improving the employment insurance system, as the Bloc Québécois as been proposing for several years now, would be a good way to help all workers. We therefore cannot support this bill for the reasons I have just given.

I encourage our NDP and Liberal colleagues, especially those from Quebec, to ask themselves some serious questions and examine this issue closely, because it is very clear that self-employed workers in Quebec will be the ones to foot the bill for everyone else when it comes to this employment insurance fund.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-56, especially since we were able to avoid a strike with CN. I am very proud to have played some role in that and I am glad to see that things were dealt with amicably.

At the outset, the Liberal Party supports the bill.

I want to talk about a number of issues in the bill that I think could be improved and need to be identified. However, I want to start off by talking a bit about who we are talking about in terms of the self-employed. It is a bit of a nebulous picture. A lot of people think of people who may be working out of their house, doing part-time or contract work, et cetera.

I asked the department to do a bit of an analysis for the committee on who these people were, especially when looking at it from the perspective of gender-based analysis for women. According to the figures for 2008, the majority of self-employed workers are male, or approximately 65% of them. Males represent approximately half of the salaried workers in that area.

Self-employed workers tend to be older and about one-third of them are women of childbearing age. This is also an interesting difference between males and females in this area. We know in the part-time worker area, the vast majority are women and a smaller number of them are males. In the self-employed area, it is the other way around.

It is also important to note that 64% of self-employed people are married, but few of them have a spouse with non-wage benefits. That is an interesting thing to look at as well. Again, it is interesting to note that, of the self-employed, women tend to earn less than men do. On average, women earn about $38,000 and men earn about $64,000. There is a big disparity in terms of what they do.

When we look at the kind of work they tend to do, it is interesting because women tend to be involved in self-employed work that has more to do with social and community issues, whereas men tend to do things that have more to do with industry, et cetera. That does not mean to say that women do not do that, but this is a bit of a different breakdown and it may account for some of the difference in income.

Also important to note is that more women than men tend to work out of the house. More men tend to work outside of their homes, which means they have offices and possibly staff and are spending a great deal more time running their self-employment like a small company. Women are probably mixing, looking after their children, caregiving for children or family and working out of their home, thereby earning considerably less.

These are interesting differences to note as we look at this legislation and how it will perform in the long run. It is very important to ensure that it benefits all people who need benefits under this program.

For quite some time now, the National Liberal Women's Caucus has advocated for covering the self-employed in the area of parental leave, compassionate leave, sick leave and so on. For the last three pink books, as we call them, or our policy on action plans for economic security for women, this has been recommended consistently.

In addition, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has done a study on the self-employed. I will come to that in a moment when I talk about the impact on women and this structure versus any other. I will get to that a bit later. At this point, I want to clarify some other things with respect to the differences between self-employed men and self-employed women.

There is quite a difference in the kind of work they do, the number of hours they spend at work outside of the home and their income levels. Women tend to earn a lower income than men do. It is quite a considerable gap. I think that will have a great deal of impact on how this works.

With regard to the actuarial work that was done on this bill, it is my understanding that the chief actuary really did not do direct work on it, at least that is what I understood when I talked to him. This was the information we received.

Under the bill, participation would not be compulsory. It would be self-selecting or, in other words, entirely voluntary. People could actually opt out after one year if they had not collected any money. They could opt in to stay in, but that would not be mandatory.

The Standing Committee on Status of Women did a study. All the experts who presented at standing committee said that if it were not mandatory, it would not work actuarially, that it would not be self-sustaining or self-sufficient.

We posed those questions at committee. Officials told us that this was doable and workable. However, I do not think the chief actuary was quite so unequivocal on his statements when we spoke.

Since it would be totally voluntary, it is more than likely that people who would use it would be women who were expecting children, or where members of a family were not well and caregiving was needed. They may be more likely to opt in but others may not do so. I asked the actuary if this would not be a problem as there may not be enough people and this would result in the fund not being self-sufficient.

We must keep in mind that the premiums paid by those individuals who opt in will cover only their own premiums and not those of the employer, meaning the employer portion would be covered by the EI fund. When I raised this issue, an official admitted there could be a shortfall as a result of this but it would be monitored. My concern with that is a shortfall would obviously be subsidized by the EI premiums, not by the government's central fund. These premiums would be contributed by working people.

This brings me to another aspect and it is the fact that the majority of people who work part-time are women. A lot of these women pay into EI all the time. They cannot access parental leave benefits and so on, but they have children and they have to work to make a living to keep their home stable, et cetera. They in effect would be subsidizing the self-employed without ever being able to benefit from the fund. That is a bit of a concern.

Teachers who do not work during the summer are not able to accumulate the required 600 hours under the plan. I received a letter from a constituent a couple of days ago indicating that she was unable to access the fund. She asked why this was the case.

The bill is necessary and we will support it. I would like the government to take a look at this area. Our party has taken the stand for quite some time that accessibility to EI needs to be 360 hours. That is where it would become really accessible to all those who really need it, especially when we look at the gender issue. The fund would then become accessible to part-time workers, most of whom are women, and also professionals like teachers and others who would have difficulty otherwise.

Under this structure, the minimum requirement would be earnings of $6,000 in a year. I am not quibbling with that, but as I pointed out earlier, men who are self-employed tend to earn a great deal more than women so they would probably reach the $6,000 within a month or two of work in a year. Meanwhile, women would have to work longer, and that is fine, but some women would be left out.

I asked the department to do a gender-based analysis on this particular bill, as I did with regard to the previous EI bill, the extended weeks of pay legislation. If there were a proper, thorough, gender-based analysis done on the EI system to enable us to see what is truly the impact on women in this country of all demographics and using proper desegregated data that is available from Statistics Canada, that would take us a long way to having legislation that truly reflects the needs and does not leave people out. This is a whole area that is extremely important that we discussed at committee. I have raised this many times before, and I raise it again because it is of great importance to women in this country.

With respect to the actuarial cost and the strength of that, it is important that the government have the chief actuary do a proper actuarial analysis of the bill to see what shortcomings and shortfalls they expect to have. Whatever shortfall there is should probably be funded through the central government, as opposed to the EI fund.

The other part that is very important to note is on the premiums that will be paid by self-employed Canadians. I am not suggesting or impugning any negative or wrongdoing. I think probably it was quite inadvertent, but certainly there is a mistake with the legislation with respect to the premiums that would have to be paid by citizens of Quebec in this area. It looks as though they will end up paying a great deal more.

The former chief actuary in fact came to committee to point that out to us. We unfortunately found this out at the end, when we were doing clause-by-clause. So it was not possible to try to amend the bill at committee, but I would encourage the government to amend the bill and fix that problem prior to the bill leaving the House. I would love to see that happen, because I think it is very important that it be done. It would be unfair and it is an error that needs to be fixed, and I would hope that the government would do that.

As I said, I am not suggesting that this was intentional. This was probably an error. It is simply an error that needs to be fixed. I would like to see that happen and I hope the government will do that very quickly.

At this point I just want to go back to the amount of money and the amount of time and the opting in and out. I know that people can opt out of self-employment if they have not used it at the end of the year. I am not sure how much instability this will create and to what extent, and also paperwork. For people who are in or out of the system at different times and then having to wait and maintain all of that, I think that would cause some instability.

I feel that the program would be much more stable and much stronger if it were a mandatory program. We had experts at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It was very clear that they felt that the program would not be viable or stable if it were not made a compulsory program, because some people would benefit and others would not.

It is important that the government, once the bill is passed, do a thorough evaluation of the bill, probably within a year or so of the bill being in place, and ensure that the potential weaknesses that it might have are fixed earlier rather than later. I would not want us to find, a year or two or three from now, that we have been carrying a deficit and that it is not a self-sustaining program in terms of finances and in terms of who is benefiting.

As well, it would be interesting to see how it works out with the information that I discussed earlier with respect to self-employed women versus self-employed men, because again, there is a disparity and a difference that needs to be watched very closely to ensure that all self-employed people who obviously need this program benefit. There has been a great deal of interest, a great deal of pressure, and a great deal of debate for some time now.

As I said earlier, the National Liberal Women's Caucus has for some time advocated for this. We are glad to see that in fact it is now before the House.

As I said earlier, we support the bill but there are some areas that I believe need to be looked at and addressed, because without that we do not have a bill that is as good as it can be. I would also like to see the bill be self-financing, self-sustaining, and the only way that can happen is if that kind of analysis is done long before it goes forward.

Just before I finish, I would reiterate that the $6,000 that is the minimum is not an area I am quibbling with; it is not an area that is of concern. That equates to about 600 hours. I am not quite sure how they came to that particular number. At about $10 an hour, 600 hours of work is $6,000. I understand that it would be difficult to be able to monitor hours, to some degree. It would be difficult for someone to be able to ensure that the self-employed are not in any way, shape or form hiding hours or what have you.

The $6,000, in and of itself, is not the only parameter that I would like to see. I would like the government to take a look at the hours of entrance as opposed to just the money, the income. The $6,000 is something that I suppose some self-employed men and women could earn very quickly and the 600 hours could take longer. However, I am focusing on the hours because, for me, it is very important for accessibility. As I said, there are part-time people who are paying EI all the time but cannot access any of the programs that we are now talking about in this House and bringing forth for others.

There are teachers who do not work through the summer but do not build up 600 hours easily and therefore are also not eligible. The case that I received in my office is an adoption case where the parent cannot access benefits for that very reason.

Therefore, I would encourage the government that once this bill is passed, and if they amend it earlier that would be great, to really, truly look at the accessibility of it and look at the 360 hours for accessibility, because that in fact would allow part-time workers, most of whom are women, to access it.

Employment insurance is not a luxury. It is not something that we receive as a top-up on some other income. For most families in this country, it is keeping body and soul together. It is keeping a roof over their heads. It is paying their rent and keeping food on the table for their children. It is very critical that employment insurance not only be a strong system but also that it does not leave people out.

Unfortunately, poverty in our country is still very strong, especially now with the downturn in the economy. While the economy is picking up, the reality is that it is a jobless recovery. Whether we like it or not, no matter which way we look at it, that is the reality. In Toronto, my city, the unemployment rate is the highest I have ever seen. Probably, realistically, it is somewhere around 15%, maybe even a bit more. It is very high.

For people who are struggling to survive, to pay rent and to get their jobs and their training, EI is a huge piece of our safety net. A strong EI gives people a chance to be able to rebuild their lives, which then gives them access to training, and so on.

The other thing, before I finish, that is very important and most people forget is that 80% of caregiving in our country is done by women. This talks about parental leave and compassionate leave, but women do 80% of the compassionate leave and they are subsidizing all the rest of the economy. This is why it is very important to me that the government review that aspect of the bill.

We support this bill, and I would hope that the government, in partnership with us, will actually look at some of those areas that need to be addressed.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to see the bill proceed to this stage.

I am glad to have the opportunity to rise to speak to this important milestone in bringing special benefits under employment insurance to self-employed Canadians. This is one of the most significant enhancements to the EI program in the last decade. It has been a long time coming for self-employed Canadians.

This fulfills a pledge by our Conservative government in 2008 to bring forward EI maternity and parental benefits to self-employed Canadians. A year ago, the Prime Minister said that self-employed Canadians and those who one day hoped to be should not have to choose between starting a family and starting a business because of government policy. They should be able to pursue their dreams both as entrepreneurs and as parents.

In fact, we have surpassed this commitment by also including EI sickness and compassionate care benefits. We do this because self-employed workers deserve to have access to these special benefits. We do this because extending access to special benefits is the fair and the right thing to do.

I think every member of the House recognizes the importance of the self-employment sector in the daily functioning of our economy and of our society.

In over 15% of our labour market self-employed entrepreneurs are a growing influence, not only because of their significant numbers but also because of the wealth of their ideas, innovation and jobs that they generate and create from time to time and year by year.

The self-employed form a diverse group, with widely varying situations and incomes. They include people with small businesses, farmers, construction workers, professionals, tradesmen, those in sales and those who own a home business among many others. Despite their importance, these entrepreneurs do not have the support they need when it comes to the important events of life, such as the birth of a child, adoption, illness and care of a gravely ill family members.

These sorts of events can have a significant impact on the self-employed who have little or no income protection. If they do not work, they do not make any money. Right now, they do not have any of the same EI support measures that Canadians employed by others do.

We are going to change that by implementing a voluntary system. We are following through on our commitment to self-employed Canadians.

It should come as no surprise that our self-employed have long asked for this support. In fact, a large majority of the self-employed want access to these benefits. Recent public opinion research shows that a majority of self-employed Canadians would like to gain access to EI maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits.

Eighty-six per cent of self-employed Canadians support access to sickness benefits, 84% support access to compassionate care benefits and 64% support access to maternity and parental benefits. The message from self-employed Canadians is clear.

Our Conservative government has listened and we are taking action. We recognize the challenges facing working Canadians as they deal with the dual pressure of holding down jobs and caring for their families. We recognize that nearly a third of all self-employed are women of child bearing age.

Our government knows that families are the foundation of our society. The bill is yet another example of how our government is providing support and choice to Canadian families and people recognize that.

Catherine Swift, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, understands the benefits of this bill. On November 4, she said in the Montreal Gazette:

—the initiative fills a “glaring gap” for people running their own business, especially women....We have a lot of women members. They'd like to have a child and yet abandoning your business is not (an option).

We do not want the self-employed to become discouraged about starting families by ever present financial risks associated with running their own business. We certainly do not want their families to suffer because of unequal access to supports that are widely available to most other Canadians.

Given the strength of our country's economy, especially the strength it gets from our self-employed and their businesses as a country, we cannot afford to leave these people out in the cold. Stronger entrepreneurship means a stronger Canada. We need their skills, their experience and their energy and creativity to meet the challenges to come. This is why our government believes these entrepreneurs deserve to have access to EI special benefits.

We also recognize that there is an increasing number of self-employed Canadians who are taking care of elderly parents while also raising young children. The government believes that these entrepreneurs should not have to choose between their business and family responsibilities, whether those responsibilities are for newborns or parents, the young or the elderly.

By giving our self-employed the option for increased income protection, we are allowing individuals who might otherwise have to leave the workforce to stay fully engaged, to stay productive and to keep contributing to this great country of Canada. Not only does this benefit them but it also means that they can continue to make valuable contributions to their communities and the economy.

We are stimulating entrepreneurship and making self-employment more appealing to all Canadians. That is why we are extending access to EI special benefits for the self-employed and why we firmly believe that it is the fair, responsible and right thing to do.

These benefits are significant. They are as follows: 15 weeks of maternity benefits for a birth mother; 35 weeks of parental benefits for parents to care for their newborn or newly adopted child; up to 15 weeks of benefits for individuals who are unable to work because of sickness, injury or quarantine; and a maximum of six weeks to provide care or support to a terminally ill relative.

Under the proposed legislation, self-employed Canadians would voluntarily opt into the program and pay EI premiums on an ongoing basis for at least one year before receiving benefits. To access EI special benefits, they would need to have earned a minimum of $6,000 in self-employed earnings over the preceding calendar year.

The self-employed could opt out of the program at the end of any taxation year, as long as they have never claimed benefits. If they have claimed benefits, they would have to contribute from their self-employed earnings for as long as they are self-employed.

Self-employed Canadians who opt into the EI program would pay the same premium rate as salaried employees. They would not be required to pay the employer portion of premiums, in recognition of the fact that they would not have access to EI regular benefits.

In Quebec, self-employed residents already have access to maternity and parental benefits through the Quebec parental insurance plan. Now the federal government would provide the self-employed in Quebec with the opportunity to gain access to the sickness and compassionate care benefit under the EI program.

Should they choose to take advantage of the program, they would pay the same EI premium rates as employers in Quebec. Rates there have already been adjusted downward to take into account the existence of a provincial maternity and parental benefit plan.

I would like to bring to light an endorsement from an organization representing an important group of self-employed people, the realtors. Dale Ripplinger is the president of the Canadian Real Estate Association. On November 4 his organization issued a press release that it “applauds the government for taking action to address many of the inequities in the Employment Insurance program faced by self-employed REALTORS”.

The organization went on to say, “This is an important step to level the benefits playing field for self-employed Canadians. We look forward to working with the government to ensure access to EI benefits for REALTORS, which can help balance career and family life”.

I also have a quote from the executive director of the Grain Growers of Canada, Richard Phillips. In a news release on November 3, 2009, he said that the legislation is “very welcome. This has huge potential for quality of life in rural Canada”. He continued, “This could be the difference as whether one member of the family has to seek off farm employment because now families will have a choice. With over 200,000 farms in Canada, if even 10% of them choose to take advantage of these programs, this could help ensure another 20,000 more young families staying on the land”.

It is this kind of thing that allows those who are self-employed and who contribute to our economy to get some benefits that are important to them and their families and ensure that they can continue to pursue their careers and jobs.

This legislation is the most significant enhancement to the EI program in the last decade. It is in keeping with our Conservative government's commitment to make the EI program responsive to the needs of Canadian workers. It is just one of the many enhancements that we have already made to the EI program.

We added five extra weeks of EI regular benefits, helping over 365,000 Canadians while they search for new employment.

We enhanced the work sharing program, protecting the jobs of about 165,000 or more Canadians.

We made unprecedented investments in training to help Canadians receive the skills training they need to enter a new career.

Our government froze EI premiums for two years, which helped employers create more jobs and also kept more money in the pockets of employees.

We added a $60 million investment in the targeted initiative for older workers to help older workers, who obviously have invaluable knowledge and mentoring potential, to transition into a new job.

We also passed legislation recently to provide five to twenty weeks of additional EI support benefits for long-tenured workers, who have worked hard, have paid premiums and are looking to transition into a new job.

Most recently, of course, we have introduced this program, which has been very well received by many.

Our government is protecting jobs. We are helping people get trained and upgraded for jobs. Now we have made changes that allow more flexibility for employers' recovery plans.

We have had the career transition assistance initiative, which has been providing assistance to long-tenured workers who need training to transition to a new industry or occupation. The support under Bill C-50 for long-tenured workers was certainly something that was well received.

All of these ventures demonstrate that our Conservative government continues to make responsible choices to support Canadians now, to support Canadians when they need it, to support Canadians when they find themselves in a difficult time.

With Bill C-56, we are taking steps to respond quickly to the needs of self-employed workers, so that they will also be protected in times of need.

Our Conservative government knows that families are the foundation of our great country. We believe that self-employed Canadians should not have to choose between their family and business responsibilities. They should not be forced to choose between one or the other.

Let us all support self-employed workers for their dynamism and their contribution to our economy. Let us create a stronger, more entrepreneur friendly and productive country in the process. Let us get behind our self-employed and do what is right. Let us do what they have been asking for for a long time.

I would urge all members in all parties to support this bill and to get it through the House at the earliest opportunity.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Labour

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is not actually a point of order, but I do welcome the opportunity to also congratulate the Minister of Labour and indeed all members of Parliament, perhaps with the exception of a few.

I think we all know the parties that were actively involved in trying to ensure that the back-to-work legislation that was introduced in this House and that I intended to call later today is now unnecessary.

I think that is great news for the country. I congratulate both sides of this dispute for coming to this common sense resolution so that we did not have to occupy the time of the House and the time of members from all parties in a debate in this place.

It would be my intention following routine proceedings to call Bill C-56 for debate this afternoon.

Employment Insurance

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-56, for the first time, we are offering self-employed workers in Quebec the opportunity to pay into the plan in order to receive compassionate care, sickness and injury benefits at an affordable price.

This is the first time these benefits have been offered outside private companies. It is a good thing for Quebeckers who are self-employed workers.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has improved the employment insurance system for all workers and their families. We introduced Bill C-56, which would offer compassionate care and sickness benefits to self-employed workers in Quebec at an affordable and reasonable rate. That is a first.

As it stands, Quebeckers have access only to a private insurance program that can be very expensive. I invite the Minister of National Revenue to give the House an update on Bill C-56

Human Resources Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I also wish to thank all members of committee from both sides of the House for their hard work and their spirit of co-operation in getting this bill through committee.

Employment Insurance

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is trying to force workers in Quebec to swallow an insult. The contribution rate that self-employed workers in Quebec will pay for benefits under Bill C-56 is totally disproportionate. According to the human resources department's own estimates, Quebeckers will pay too much for the services they receive.

Will the government admit the injustice that is being done to self-employed workers in Quebec, who are going to have to subsidize other workers?

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

Let me respond to what Ed said a while ago following my intervention, which is, what am I talking about here? What do I need in order to have some assurance that we don't need an amendment like this?

I don't have to work out 100% of the details now, but if the parliamentary secretary gives me his assurance that the government will support a motion asking the Auditor General to have a complete look at Bill C-56 to assure its actuarial soundness, in particular looking at how rates are set and its impact on the EI fund, I'd be prepared to move this bill through tonight without material change to it. I don't have to have the exact working. We have the blues here.

Is that something we can agree on and have a look at?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to remind Mr. Komarnicki that I was the one who chaired the committee in your absence.

I will do it in English so there won't be a translation problem between me and Mr. Kormarnicki and he will understand the weight of my words.

I was the person who presided over the meeting because you were away, Mr. Chair. In the meeting we discussed under what circumstances we would discuss and do the clause-by-clause and table Bill C-56. I do not recall our ever mentioning the word “amendment” either in a negative or in a positive sense. We simply discussed the fact that we would do the clause-by-clause and that we would eventually, by Friday at the latest.... That is what the agreement was. There was no agreement as to whether we would bring in or not bring in amendments. We simply didn't discuss it.

That is the first thing I want to say.

The second one is, since Mr. Komarnicki talks about additional expenses, the legislative clerk has just explained to us—and I have to take his word as being a very informed person—that there are no additional expenses, and this is why he has ruled that my colleague Mr. Lessard's motion is not out of order as you wish it to be, Mr. Komarnicki.

The last thing I want to mention is this regarding Tuesday afternoon when I sat in the chair once again. I want Mr. Komarnicki to recall how difficult it had been--and he was part of the discussion--to bring the actuary to this meeting this afternoon. We didn't even really know, in fact, which actuary we were bringing because we didn't even know what his full title was, whether he was actuary to the government or if he was one to the ministry or what. That was another question we were asking. I know that perhaps other people around this table were not in the dark, but I was pretty much in the dark as to who this person was and what his title was, and therefore what his responsibilities were.

So things have come out this afternoon that I certainly didn't know about and I am very glad I know about now, because it does bring a certain light on that aspect--not on the whole Bill C-56, but on that aspect of the bill. This does not change the fact that eventually we will come to a decision, whatever that decision may be, and that eventually it will be tabled or not on Friday.

Mr. Komarnicki, I'll say it right to you. I feel that what you are doing right now is pure blackmail. I'm telling you, Mr. Komarnicki, I am disappointed in you.

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

Okay, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

This amendment is very appropriate. It would also have been very opportune if our colleagues opposite had been able to hear from Mr. Bédard because they would then have understood how pertinent this amendment is.

Mr. Chair, I feel that I have to say that Mr. Taillon's claim that the documents I have that list the costs are comparing apples and oranges is unfortunate. That just shows contempt, as the conservatives do when someone has an opinion different from theirs. That is destroying people who hold different views. This is what Mr. Taillon is doing when he says that a career official who has given Canada 32 years of service, including 12 as Chief Actuary, is incompetent, at the same time as he refuses to have his own documents in hand.

I find that offensive. I find it irresponsible and unacceptable, because, in those documents, we are going to discover an annual deficit of $100 million whereas there will be a $30 million surplus in Quebec.

What will happen then? That deficit will have to be made up. Quebec will have paid twice because there will be a $30 million surplus precisely because fewer people are eligible. We must remember that everyone in Quebec who takes parental or maternity leave is not eligible. That just leaves the people on compassionate or sick leave, and that is a minority.

That is why the amendment we are proposing here provides a balance. It is totally false to claim that there is fair treatment here. And, all through this present exercise, we have been prevented from showing this. This is even clearer today, because the only person who could provide us with an objective opinion about all this, a generous contribution on his part that does absolutely nothing for him, has been dismissed out of hand. They have rejected the advice and are doing what they have done in other committees: treat the person who wanted to testify with disrespect and not even give him the opportunity to be heard. I find this quite deplorable. It would have provided the clarification that our colleagues require in order for them to vote with us in favour of this amendment and to clearly understand what it is about.

We had other documents to present, Mr. Chair. We have a very basic one here that sums up the situation very well. But there are other documents that show the excessive contributions, the surpluses in Quebec and the deficits in the rest of Canada.

Let me tell our colleagues in the Liberal Party this right away. I feel that the intent to make up any deficit from the public purse is very good. But even that is going to add to Quebec's financial responsibilities, since there is no funding for it. Our taxes are going to be used to pay for a benefit that Quebec is already paying for itself, Mr. Chair.

That is why I feel that, in order for us to vote in favour of Bill C-56, this amendment must be passed. If not, people will accept it based on a misunderstanding of its costs, which will have been falsified, Mr. Chair. And we cannot give our support to that.

I hope that colleagues will vote with us to support this amendment.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It's a point of order with respect to the motion to amend.

Bill C-56 as you know, Mr. Chair, would establish a scheme to provide for the payment of special EI benefits to self-employed workers who are not currently entitled to receive them. Premiums for the special benefits are set out in part VII.1 of Bill C-56, and since the bill would increase government spending, the bill is accompanied by a royal recommendation, as we know. The member has proposed an amendment that would change the manner in premium rates for EI special benefits and how they're calculated. The amendment would add an additional calculation for reducing employer and employee premiums, and this would increase the EI program costs by reducing premium rates for self-employed workers. By amending the manner in which the premium rates for EI benefits are calculated, the amendment would alter the conditions of the royal recommendation for Bill C-56, and citation 596 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which states:

...an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or it relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.

Page 767 of the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and I quote:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiatives of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury....

I would therefore ask that this motion to amend the bill be ruled out of order.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Here we go:

That Bill C-56 in clause 4 be amended by replacing lines 18 to 23 on page 2 with the following:

initial claims for benefits under this Act by an individual if the individual who accumulated the violation qualified for benefits in each of those two initial claims, taking into account subsection (1) or )2), subparagraph 152.07(1)(d)(ii) or regulations made under Part VIII, as the case may be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The one they're handing out now has Bill C-56 on the front. It says G-1 in the right corner and talks about “committee stage”, and it should have a “number 1” written on the bottom of the page.

[Luc Taillon]

First, I would like to say that the figures in Mr. Bédard's document are for the most part correct, except for the qualitative comments that I do not agree with. I have the English version of the document in front of me. When he says that the Quebec premium rate of 1.36% is excessively high, I feel that Mr. Bédard is comparing apples and oranges.

We are not dealing with a compulsory plan here. We must be very careful with the figures that Mr. Bédard is using. Many of those figures are actually taken from the most recent report of the Chief Actuary, published last October 14. They all deal with a compulsory plan. Employment Insurance is a compulsory plan.

However, Bill C-56deals with a voluntary plan. The actuarial dynamics change considerably. My first reaction is that he is comparing apples to oranges.

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

Mr. Chair, I would appreciate it if you could give him a little more time. This is critical. Over there, you have the only witness who can corroborate or contradict our information, and here, just now, we had people doing their best to prevent him from speaking. We decided that we were going to hear the testimony from the witnesses here in its entirety.

I would like to hear from Mr. Taillon. He is the Chief Actuary. We invited him here today. It is his responsibility to enlighten us, all the more so because he says he agrees with the figures and with Bill C-56.

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

Like you, I am sure he is.

I am going to read the document. Mr. Bédard is retired, yet he has generously taken the initiative to give us his opinion on the questions we were asking during the discussions that he saw on television. He writes the following:

At the committee meeting on November 19, you asked Minister Finley and Mr. Vermaeten what were the costs of the special benefits included in the employment insurance benefits package. Please find attached the answer to your question. - Maternity/parental leave benefits: 0.88% - Sickness benefits: 0.41% - Compassionate care benefits: 0.0002% (minor) It is worth noting that premium deductions applicable to the Quebec parental leave benefits program must be included in the total cost calculation, as well as the costs related to the premium reductions applicable, Canada-wide, to private wage insurance benefits (in case of sickness) offered by employers.

In bold characters, he then writes:

The premium rate that Quebecers should pay under C-56 for insurance sickness benefits should be 0.41%. A 1.36% premium rate would be excessively high. If, in accordance with C-56, the 1.36% premium rate is charged (as for the employees), then the reduction granted to employers, which is 1.4 times the reduction granted to employees, is not taken into consideration.

At the end of the document, he invites me to contact him if I need further clarification.

On the following page, there is a list of the employment insurance special benefits. He gives a breakdown of the cost of those special benefits, a breakdown that we could not get from the officials in our two most recent meetings with them. We have checked the breakdown and it seems to coincide exactly with our own figures.

Mr. Taillon, could you tell us if this document could serve as a reference for us in our work today, and whether the information is correct?

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

Mr. Chair, there is a major reason why we did not have 48 hours. First of all, I did not learn about the information that I received from Mr. Bédard until last night. It was not until today that we could check to see if he could appear before the committee at today's meeting.

Furthermore, Mr. Bédard learned of our proceedings. He is not here to make the officials who are here look bad. That has never been his style. He is here to provide additional information that he considers relevant, given his experience and expertise, as well as his knowledge of the current situation and the issues related to Bill C-56. That is why it is important to hear from him. It would be unfortunate for the committee not to benefit from such a knowledgeable resource and informed opinion.

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

Mr. Chair, before we begin, the clerk received a notice of motion from us. A little while ago, in the House of Commons, I brought up the fact that we had received new information that could be very useful to the committee. The information comes to us from the former chief actuary. We submitted a notice of motion to the clerk that reads as follows:

That the study of the clause by clause of Bill C-56 be postponed in order to hear the previous chief actuary to the employment insurance commission, Michel Bédard.

Immediately after hearing from our friends here today at the committee meeting, we hope to hear from Mr. Bédard, which would not delay our proceedings very much. Right after that, we could continue with our clause-by-clause study of the bill. That is my proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to order of reference of Thursday, November 5, 2009, Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, we'll now get started.

Before we get started, there's a budget before you. It's a supplementary travel request that needs to go before the Liaison Committee tomorrow morning to be approved. It's for additional witnesses and equipment that was omitted on the first budget. I'm sure there are probably not a whole lot of questions regarding that. I'll call the question on the budget.

All in favour of the $21,580 request for additional funds from the Liaison Committee.

(Motion agreed to)

We have the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development before us today. We have Frank Vermaeten, Louis Beauséjour, and Luc Taillon. Thank you for being here.

I understand you don't have a statement, but you have a few comments to make before we get started.

Oral Questions

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a document received by the member for Chambly—Borduas, to which he referred during question period.

The document is from Michel Bédard, former chief employment insurance actuary from 1991 to 2003, who conducted his own analysis of the contribution rates set out in Bill C-56. He shows that the contribution rates are far too high given the coverage proposed in the bill.

I would like to table this document in both official languages.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the House leader for the official opposition, for his question.

This Thursday I will contain myself mainly to the traditional question which is the business ahead for the next week for the House of Commons.

This week we are focusing yet again on the government's justice bills. Yesterday we completed the final reading of Bill C-36, the serious time for serious crime bill. We expect to send Bill C-58, the child protection bill, to committee later today. I had hoped that debate might have collapsed before question period and that bill would have already been on its way to committee. Hopefully that will happen this afternoon.

We will then be debating at second reading Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. We are hopeful debate will conclude on this bill as well today.

Other bills scheduled for debate this week are Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, and Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which is the response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Shoker bill.

Next week we will be calling for debate: Bill C-27, anti-spam, at third reading; Bill C-44, the Canada Post remailers bill, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Canada-Jordan free trade bill, at second reading; Bill C-56, fairness for the self-employed bill, at report stage and third reading; and of course, as always, I will give consideration to any bill that is reported back from committee.

My hon. colleague asked about allotted days. Next Tuesday, it would be my intention to have as the next allotted day.

Employment Insurance

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the former EI chief actuary, Michel Bédard, the contribution rate announced for self-employed workers in Quebec, $1.36 per $100, is far too high. It should be 41¢ to cover the real costs of the new benefits provided for in Bill C-56.

Will the minister admit that the contribution rate for self-employed workers in Quebec is three times the actual costs of the special sickness and compassionate benefits, the only new benefits they can receive under Bill C-56?

Support Measures for Adoptive Parents

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to contribute to the debate on Motion M-386 brought forward by my colleague and friend, the member for Essex. This private member's motion has to do with support for adoptive parents, which is an extremely important issue.

I find it interesting. The motion comes up for the second hour of debate at the same time a motion passed unanimously in the House, which said that we would continue to work toward ending child poverty. I would suggest that there is no more effective way of ending child poverty than having a child become a part of a family, a family that can support and wants to support the child, which is the case when it comes to adoptive parenting.

I really wanted to speak on this issue because I know, as do most people in the House, one couple in particular that has been married 10 years. The couple has tried to have children for 10 years and desperately want children. About five years ago, the couple found out that was not likely to happen. The couple then started the process of trying to adopt a family. It has been an extremely difficult process and it has not been successful so far.

The motion discusses an issue which is extremely important and emotional, not just for that couple but for everyone, I suggest, who thinks about this.

I know the joy of children. My wife, Linda, and I have five grown children.The youngest two are 26. The oldest is 31. We have two sets of twins. I know the joy they have brought us, and continue to bring us. I cannot imagine my life without our children. I know my wife feels the same way. Now there are grandchildren, which is just a lovely, wonderful experience. We are blessed that two of our children have had children. We have three grandchildren, the youngest being a four-month-old granddaughter, Claire, who is just absolutely gorgeous and a delight, as are the two, two-and-a-half-year-old grandchildren.

The joy of children and family is something that most of us understand. It is something that, quite frankly, is more important than anything else I can imagine.

I applaud the member for Essex for seeking to assist families that have been brought together by adoption.

What he has proposed in his motion, specifically, as was mentioned by previous members, is that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be instructed to examine current federal support measures that are available to adoptive parents and their adopted children, recognizing and respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions in this regard, and following completion of this study, to report back to the House.

What does my friend, the member for Essex hope to get from the study? I really cannot speak on his behalf, but I know what I hope will come from this. I sincerely hope this group, after examining the situation, will come back to the House and recommend that adoptive parents be given the same maternity benefits that are now available to parents of children who are not adopted.

I believe family is the basic building block of our society. Everything starts with the family, as my colleagues who have spoken before me have said. Helping families has been a key priority of our government since 2006, and I want to talk about this a bit.

In all our actions to support family, this government has been guided by the principles of choice and opportunity. We believe Canadian parents can be trusted to be do what is best for their children. Our role is not to dictate their choices, but to give them the resources they need to act on this decision, whatever it may be.

Let me start by putting this issue into context by giving a brief outline of the benefits and plans that now exist for parents, specifically, with reference to the employment insurance special benefit system.

The system provides help to Canadians for periods when they cannot work, such as sickness, caring for loved ones or, in the case of the context here, the birth or adoption of a child. When it comes to the issue at hand, the employment insurance special benefits are intended to support parents in balancing the demands of work and family by providing the flexibility they need to stay at home and care for a newborn or newly adopted child.

I can also happily add that our government has put forward Bill C-56, which would extend all of these special benefits, including maternity and parental benefits, to self-employed Canadians, for the first time, on a voluntary basis, which is an important component. I support this measure. Hard-working Canadians do not have to choose between family and work responsibilities any longer.

Maternity benefits are available in the weeks surrounding childbirth and can start up to eight weeks prior to the expected date of birth. These benefits are available to biological mothers, including a birth mother who places her child for adoption. In effect, the 15 weeks of maternity benefits allow a birth mother to be protected from an earnings loss caused by her physical inability to work or to seek work in the weeks surrounding birth.

Some concerns have been expressed that adoptive parents do not have the same access and number of weeks of benefits as biological parents do, which is 15 weeks of maternity benefits offered exclusively to birth mothers. Who knows, this might come out of a study done by the committee.

However, in 2007 the Federal Court upheld the 15 weeks of maternity benefits when it confirmed that there was a distinction between biological mothers and adoptive parents. Biological mothers endure the physiological burdens of pregnancy and childbirth. It is for those reasons that the 15 weeks are offered. Maternity benefits are provided to replace the lost income for those reasons.

The Federal Court endorsed the constitutionality of that arrangement and the Supreme Court, in 2008, declined to hear an appeal in the case. I believe that is appropriate. It is certainly not up to the courts to make our law. That is the role of Parliament. What we are discussing here is the possibility of changing the law and making new law when it comes to this maternity benefit.

As well, all parents can access 35 weeks of parental benefits for the purpose of remaining at home to take care of and bond with their newly born or adopted child. That is available already. These benefits can be shared by both parents.

To return to adoption itself, in Canada, as many in the House are aware, this is an issue that falls under provincial jurisdiction. However, the federal government has a role. The committee that does a study and any debate that may take place in the House certainly would respect the jurisdiction of the provinces when it comes to these issues.

Our Conservative government introduced and saw pass Bill C-14 two and a half years ago. It grants permanent resident status or Canadian citizenship to internationally adopted children and makes that process much quicker and easier. This measure was widely praised and I think it is an example of a job well done by our government.

In the time remaining, I cannot go through the rest of the things our government has done to help families. In most cases, the things our government has done apply to families whether they have adopted children or not.

Once again, I thank my friend and colleague, the member for Essex, for bringing this motion to the House. I support the motion and I encourage every member in the House to support it. It simply asks for a study to be done to determine what is available and perhaps come up with recommendations on what should be available to parents who choose to adopt children.

[Barbara Byers, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm pleased to be here in front of the committee again on behalf of the 3.2 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, workers in virtually every occupation in communities all across this country.

The CLC has long supported the provision of special benefits—maternity/parental/adoption benefits, sickness, and compassionate care—through the employment insurance program. Those benefits now make up an important part of the Canadian income security system. Maternity and parental benefits allow working parents, especially women, to better balance the demands of work and family care, helping equalize labour market outcomes between women and men while also contributing in a central way to the well-being of very young children. Sickness benefits provide an important income cushion to cover an involuntary absence from work of up to 15 weeks.

The CLC welcomed a major expansion of maternity and parental benefits in 2001, when parental benefits were increased from 10 to 35 weeks, bringing the total leave period up to one year, counting the two-week waiting period. Given the fact that a significant and rising proportion of all labour force participants, not least women, are self-employed, and that the trend to self-employment may continue, it's important that self-employed workers be given access to many of the same protections and rights provided to employees where this is feasible and appropriate. We believe that it is both fair and feasible to provide access to maternity and parental benefits comparable to those of employees.

We strongly support the principle of extending maternity and parental benefits to self-employed workers, but this must be done in a manner that is consistent with the basic principles of a social insurance program. A basic principle of social insurance is that participation is mandatory, so that costs are pooled across the workforce. The labour movement welcomed the introduction of the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan in 2006 as a progressive step forward that greatly improved access to, and the level of, maternity parental benefits for all Quebec workers, and also extended these benefits to the self-employed. In our view, Bill C-56 falls well short of the Quebec model. It does not improve access to or the level of maternity/parental benefits for employees, and it extends coverage to self-employed workers in a different and inferior way. Under the Quebec plan, all self-employed workers must pay into the program. Coverage is mandatory, as it is for employees, and the premiums paid by the self-employed in Quebec are set in such a way as to cover the full cost of the benefits provided to the self-employed. By contrast, Bill C-56 will allow self-employed workers to choose if they wish to be covered by opting out or in and paying premiums for one year before claiming a benefit. Further, the premium, set to equal the employee premium, will not, and is not, designed to cover the cost of benefits.

Our major concern is that providing special benefits to the self-employed in this way will prove costly, and could well result in a significant increase in premiums for employees and employers to cross-subsidize benefits paid to the self-employed. This could in turn undermine broad support for EI special benefits, especially given that EI premiums are likely to rise very rapidly after 2010.

Having said all this, we recommend that Bill C-56 be passed, but that the government immediately appoint the panel of experts promised in the 2009 budget. The panel should be mandated to design a program of maternity/parental benefits for self-employed workers based on social insurance principles, with close reference to the successful example of the Quebec plan. With reference to the broad issue of providing special benefits to the self-employed, we have noted on many occasions that many supposedly self-employed workers are, in legal reality, employees who deserve the protections of employee status, including EI coverage. As noted, the Quebec plan not only extended coverage to the self-employed, it also improved maternity/parental benefits for employees. The CLC supports lowering the entrance requirement from 600 to—guess what—360 hours, and benefits should be paid out on the basis of 60% of insured earnings over the best previous 12 weeks.

Changes also need to be made to the program to ensure that the receipt of maternity and parental benefits does not reduce or eliminate regular El benefit entitlements, as happens now if a layoff occurs after a return from parental leave, and vice versa, when a worker is laid off prior to parental leave.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[Dr. Don Friedlander]

Absolutely. I'll give you my card afterwards.

With me is Andrew Jones, our director of public affairs from our office, also here in Ottawa.

The Canadian Dental Association is the national voice for dentistry, dedicated to the advancement and leadership of a unified profession and to the promotion of optimal health, an essential component of general health. That's a mouthful, but what it really means is that our association is focused on building a stronger profession, nurturing a more collaborative dental community, and supporting a healthier public. We accomplish these three priorities through knowledge and advocacy, and it's primarily our work on advocating for a strong profession and supporting a healthier public that brings us before you this afternoon.

The CDA supports Bill C-56 and encourages this committee and the Parliament of Canada to pass it as expeditiously as possible. We have two key reasons for supporting this legislation. First, establishing maternity and family leave benefits for self-employed Canadians has been an advocacy issue of ours for a number of years. We have included it as a recommendation in our submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance's pre-budget consultations, and we've raised it during our regular meetings with policy- and decision-makers here on Parliament Hill.

It might surprise you that we would be a vocal advocate and supporter of extending maternity, parental, sickness, and compassionate care benefits to self-employed Canadians, including dentists. The reality is that the dental workforce and private practice environment is changing. We believe these proposed measures will make our profession more desirable to a greater number of young people who might consider dentistry as a career.

For example, we believe this act will allow a greater number of younger dentists to alter their practice style by making it easier to balance practice and family. Therefore, they can stay more involved in practice during their years of childbirth and raising young children. One of the workforce changes is that many of our new members are coming to the profession with a much different perspective and different needs from those who have come before. Our dental schools are graduating a majority now of female students--58% in 2008--and we believe it's important to allow our new dentists, whether male or female, who are bringing a fresh perspective on work and life balance to the practice of dentistry, to have the opportunity to participate in this program.

In addition, while our profession thankfully does not have provider shortage challenges like our medical colleagues, this is an issue we're watching closely. We're receiving signals that it's becoming more and more difficult to attract new dentists to practice settings in rural and remote areas in Canada. So, again, having the option to join this program may be a positive factor that allows younger dentists to locate to rural areas, alter their practice style from what we would refer to as a full-time traditional model, but still service the area with high-quality dental care that Canadian dentists provide and our patients have come to expect.

Our second key reason for supporting this legislation is its voluntary nature. We believe that the majority of current established dentists will actually not join the program, and if it were compulsory many of them would see the premiums as an unfair and unnecessary tax on their practice that will lead to no individual benefit and simply increase the cost of providing services. We're confident that we would then be sitting before you today asking that the legislation be amended to apply it in a voluntary manner. So we support the fact that it is voluntary.

In closing, Mr. Jones and I thank you for the opportunity to bring the voice of Canada's dentists to your deliberations in support of Bill C-56, and we look forward in a few minutes to responding to any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[Dr. Don Friedlander, President , Canadian Dental Association]

Madam Chair and committee members, good afternoon and thank you for inviting us to participate in your study of Bill C-56, the Faimess for the Self-Employed Act.

l'm Don Friedlander, and I'm president of the Canadian Dental Association. l'm a general dentist who happens to practise a mere few blocks away from where we are in the West Block.

[Laurell Ritchie, National Representative, Canadian Auto Workers Union]

I'm here on behalf of the Canadian Auto Workers and our president, Ken Lewenza. We thank you for this opportunity. CAW is the largest private sector union in Canada and represents a wide range of workers, not just auto, but hospitality, airlines, retail, stores, aerospace, etc. We come from a wide-ranging membership.

We're glad to see the government has expansion on its mind, and we've certainly always advocated for the kind of Quebec parental insurance program that provides coverage for the self-employed, but we believe significant amendments are needed to C-56 before it is passed into law and that consideration of Bill C-56 should be suspended until the government has appointed, made public, reviewed, and considered the report from a panel of experts, as was promised.

We are collectively the guardians of a program that was born in the depression of the 1930s. It has been a constant struggle for workers to maintain and expand that program. We take that guardianship seriously, and we need to ensure, even as we expand the program, that we are not undermining social insurance principles, that the financial integrity of the EI program is protected, and that it does not undermine or jeopardize the EI program for payroll employees by setting dangerous precedents, such as voluntary participation, or through the underfunding of new benefits so that additional costs end up being shouldered by payroll employees.

We have to ensure that C-56 delivers and provides sustainable benefits for the self-employed. The risk to sustainability certainly increases with the addition of sickness and disability benefits. There are very big questions about what this does to the projected $24.8 billion EI account deficit by 2014, as estimated by the parliamentary budget officer, short of very significant premium increases. We need to make sure this does not encourage employers to create more forced self-employment and even phony and false self-employment, which we see frequently in certain sectors, from call centres to trucking. Finally, for us, we need to ensure that it does not distract us from the much larger task we have in front of us, which is fixing EI.

In summary, we need to preserve the integrity of the EI program and basic social insurance principles, which include mandatory participation. The opt-out provision encourages what in insurance terms is called adverse selection, which I'm sure you've heard about before. Raising the premium will not solve the problem of people self-selecting in who consider themselves likely to collect benefits, because in doing so the raised premium will make this even more unattractive to more people who know they have a low risk of claim.

The proposed lock-in--that is, once registered you need to maintain those premiums--doesn't solve this problem, because we are still not pooling the risk over the entire self-employed population, but only with other payroll employees. The standard method of reducing adverse selection in insurance programs is to make the purchase of the insurance compulsory, as is done in Quebec. Again, we want to reiterate that the Quebec model is, as ACTRA and others have mentioned, the model that people had assumed would be put forward in this bill, but that is not the case.

We want to make sure that we have a good program design. We're not sure that we have a workable program and sustainable benefit provision for the self-employed. We know from experience that badly thought out program design comes with a heavy price. Benefits can be there in theory but not in practice.

Some examples.... The compassionate care benefits are well intentioned but still, many years after, very few people can claim, given the conditions for them. The EI hours system, to go back even farther, was sold similarly on the promise of new coverage for part-time workers, when in actuality it has diminished their entitlements, and some would say it was more of a premium grab. More recently, the long-tenured-worker training program, the SITI, and the EEITI, which extended EI benefits, are not working. HRSD officials have confirmed that as of October there is less than 1% of the funds set aside in the stimulus bill that is being accessed in the province of Ontario. Then finally we have the very poorly and badly designed funding of EI, the changes that were made most recently to a pro-cyclical funding model instead of a counter-cyclical model, so that we are no longer paying in the fat years, if you will, for the lean years. Indeed, we end up lowering premiums in good times, which is going to mean very big premium increases, regardless of what happens with this bill, after 2010.

By all accounts, and having read the blues for this session, the sick benefit and compassionate care benefits were pretty much an afterthought, based on focus groups and surveys where the costs and qualifications of the program don't even seem to have been presented to the participants. Earlier Statistics Canada studies have shown a much smaller interest group when the actual conditions were presented to people.

The last point I want to make here is we have to ensure that the program is no more advantageous--if we can use that word advisedly--than it is for payroll employees. As one example, if you take a look at proposed subsection 152.03(3), it says that earnings will be deducted from EI benefits if the person receives those earnings during a period claiming EI benefits. The test in fact for payroll employees is paid or payable, so a delayed payment is still allocated retroactively. This is an important point when we're talking about the self-employed.

As business commentator Michael Hlinka pointed out on a CBC program, people will make the calculations, people will arrange for bills, certain categories of the self-employed will be in a position to make arrangements with clients to delay bills. Some categories of the self-employed are uniquely in this position, so we find it disturbing that it is the term “received”.

Further on the same point, in proposed subsection 152.18(2), which talks about other earnings during a period when a person is in receipt of EI, it says 25%. In fact, the pilot projects that exist apply now in all areas, so the law says 25% but the pilot projects would provide it at 40%. It says that it applies there to all of the benefits encompassed by this legislation. This contradicts the testimony that the two lead HRSD officials gave--and I'm sorry if I'm mispronouncing their names--Vermaeten and Beauséjour. In the blues again, at 17:15, they stated the rules that apply to payroll employees, i.e., these funds are deducted from both maternity and from sick benefits, though a different formula applies to parental, would be the case here for like treatment.

We have a lot of questions of this kind. This needs to be dealt with before the bill is passed, not after.

[Stephen Waddell, National Executive Director, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists]

On November 3 we were pleased to see the human resources minister, the Honourable Diane Finley, table a bill to extend various EI benefits to self-employed Canadians. If passed, Bill C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, would extend special EI benefits, including maternity, parental, sickness, and compassionate care benefits to the self-employed. Our members, like millions of other self-employed Canadians, have to date been denied access to these benefits.

Let me be clear. ACTRA believes this is a positive first step by the federal government, but it is simply that, a first step. Although the proposed changes are not as robust as the benefits currently available to Canadians eligible for EI, ACTRA is calling on all parties to support the extension of special EI benefits to self-employed Canadians. We also urge MPs from all parties to take other suggestions we'll present here today into consideration to ensure that all Canadian artists are able to fully contribute to and benefit from the Canadian economy.

According to the new legislation, self-employed Canadians who opt into the EI program would be eligible to receive the same special benefits currently available to salaried employees, but there are differences in eligibility that deserve further consideration. Under Bill C-56, access to these special EI benefits will be voluntary. Participants must have earned at least $6,000 in self-employed earnings and must opt in for one year before making a claim. This differs from the current EI program, which provides benefits if claimants meet the equivalent of 17 weeks of full-time work, or 600 hours.

Furthermore, the cost of these special benefits will be borne by the participants themselves rather than a joint employer-employee contribution, as is the case with the regular EI program. To ensure the viability and strength of the plan in the future for self-employed workers, we believe producers should also contribute. Other models exist in Canada that demonstrate how to provide these benefits to self-employed workers in an equitable manner. The Quebec government has already set up the parental insurance plan, which provides maternity and parental benefits for self-employed new parents in that province. The Quebec program differs from the federal EI program in that benefits are higher, maximum insurable earnings are higher, there is no waiting period, and participation is mandatory.

We urge the committee to further study the Quebec model to garner ideas about how both self-employed and salaried workers can obtain stronger benefits. We also urge the committee to further help Canadian artists balance career and family life by extending regular EI benefits to self-employed Canadians, regular EI benefits or payments received when a worker loses his or her job. We recommend that once Bill C-56 is passed, a panel of experts should be established to study how to improve both the special benefits afforded by the legislation and move toward self-employed Canadians' eligibility for regular EI benefits.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

You mean under Bill C-56?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I, too, want to welcome you and thank you for your input into this study of Bill C-56.

I see that all of your organizations are in favour of Bill C-56. Parliamentarians are also in favour, as you have seen. But it is important to determine whether the scope of this bill and funding for the bill are adequate.

My first question pertains to full Employment Insurance coverage. First of all, you looked at the possibility of benefits being paid where, for example, you are out of work, whether it is on a farm or as a self-employed person, in any respect. Would have wanted the bill to also cover benefits in cases of financial problems?

[Ross Creber]

I'm sorry.

Madam Chairperson and honourable members, on behalf of the Direct Sellers Association, I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act.

I have with me today Lynda Rose, vice-president of sales and marketing for Mary Kay Cosmetics, and immediate past chairman of the Canadian Direct Sellers Association.

Since 1954, the Direct Sellers Association of Canada has established and upheld rigorous standards, ethics, and good business practices as the recognized voice of our industry. As an industry that connects more than 1.3 million Canadians to entrepreneurial opportunity and enrichment, we provide an assurance of member integrity and a foundation of trust for independent sales contractors and consumers.

Our 45 member companies, which include such well-known names as Amway, Mary Kay, Avon, and Tupperware, and their independent sales contractors market and distribute a wide range of products and services directly to consumers, usually but not exclusively in the consumer's home rather than in traditional retail establishments. Generally, these products and services are sold in the context of group presentations known as the party plan, or on a personal consultation basis. I know that some of you joined us last week at a parliamentary reception where many of our companies showcased their products and services.

Direct selling contributes significantly to the Canadian economy. Our labour pool includes some 3,900 permanent employees and, importantly for today's deliberations, over one million independent sales contractors who earned an estimated $1.1 billion in income. In a socio-economic impact study conducted by Ernst and Young, the industry's total impact on the Canadian economy, when using an income multiplier, was in excess of $1.56 billion.

The direct-selling industry is also a vital part of the small business sector in Canada, investing in entrepreneurial and human capital. Our industry has a tremendous capacity to create jobs and to promote entrepreneurial activity amongst Canadians.

We provide accessible business opportunities, with little or no investment, that are open to all Canadians, without any restrictions with respect to gender, age, education, knowledge, or previous experience. The socio-economic study I mentioned earlier also found that that 21% of direct sellers are high-school graduates, 49% have some college or university education, and 27% are college or university graduates.

People enter direct selling for a variety of reasons, including unemployment. The same study found that 11% of direct sellers were unemployed prior to entering the industry.

We are an industry where females play a major role, with 88% of direct sellers being women. Additionally, 81% are married, and 56% worked full-time and 15% worked part-time prior to entering the industry, with 12% representing more than one direct-selling company.

These are some of the reasons why the benefits that would be made available under Bill C-56 are important to us.

The capacity of our industry to create opportunities for self-employment has brought us to recent discussions with HRSDC. We are working with the minister and her department to ensure that these opportunities are available to all and especially to those on regular employment insurance benefits who are considering self-employment.

That is why we are so pleased to be here today to support Bill C-56. Any action to level the playing field between the employed and the self-employed is something we fully support.

It is premature for me to speculate on the potential level of participation we could expect, but we certainly anticipate that this would be appealing to our independent sales contractors should this bill become law. For those who do participate, it is because they will have made a determination that is right for them and for their circumstances. Having that choice available is critical.

Canadians who are self-employed, or those who are considering self-employment, will no longer have to accept that theirs is a lesser option. They can make the choice knowing there is support available for them, as there is for the traditionally employed. This can only be a positive step forward for the self-employed.

We applaud the minister for this measure and we applaud members from all parties who pledge to pass this bill without undue delay.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

[Carole Presseault, Vice-President, Government and Regulatory Affairs, Certified General Accountants Association of Canada]

Madam Chair and distinguished members of the Committee, we thank you for giving the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada the opportunity to add its voice to those of the many individuals and organizations in Canada that support Bill C-56, which provides for the payment of special Employment Insurance benefits to self-employed workers, that is, parental benefits and maternity, sickness and compassionate benefits.

Permit me to remind the committee members that CGA Canada represents 73,000 certified general accountants and students. You'll find our members and our students in industry, finance, government, and public practice. They are respected accounting and financial management professionals. CG Canada was founded over 100 years ago, and our role is to establish designations, certification requirements, and professional standards. We also offer professional development. We conduct research and advocacy and represent our members nationally and internationally.

Bill C-56 is an important piece of legislation for Canadians and for CGA Canada and its members. My colleague Madam Pohlmann has given an excellent description of the sector. We recognize the role that self-employed Canadians play in advancing investment, job creation, productivity, innovation, and expertise.

We know from the data that the numbers continue to increase. There are about 200,000 professional accountants in Canada, and approximately one in five is self-employed. Bill C-56 has a direct impact on this group of self-employed professionals, whether they're owners of accounting practices or other small businesses, consultants, tax advisers, management information technologists, or specialists in human resources.

In the past few years, CGA-Canada has seen a large increase in its membership, particularly women. Approximately 60% of graduates today are women. It is therefore perfectly natural from the standpoint of self-employed women, who face many challenges as mothers and in many cases the person responsible for taking care of their families, that our organization would take an interest in ways of improving the Employment Insurance regime and making EI benefits more accessible.

Our members were consulted a few years back, and the results showed that because they are not entitled to maternity benefits, self-employed women often wait to start a family because of their professional responsibilities. Others, meanwhile, wait until their children are grown to build their own career. And down the road, even though self-employed women cannot afford to take care of their aging parents, they have no choice.

Bill C-56 eliminates the difference between the families of employees and the self-employed, whereas everyone faces the same responsibilities and problems.

It is a question of equity. For the very first time, self-employed workers in Canada will have access to Employment Insurance and will have the option of contributing to the plan and receiving the same special benefits as those who are employed. This will enable them to meet their family responsibilities without having to make a choice.

CGA-Canada has long advocated on matters that are in the public's interest. Providing greater financial security and income protection to more individuals at this time is in the best interests of all Canadians.

We also believe that it's not just an issue of extending benefits to allow self-employed workers to opt into EI benefits; it's about making measurable improvements to the existing system so that these new entrants are brought into a strengthened EI system. But how do we accomplish this task? How do we improve the system and at the same time ensure that the framework is economically viable and does not place an undue burden on the government, employers, and employees who pay into the system? That is indeed a tall order.

CGA-Canada would be remiss if we did not offer a cautionary note. We understand that the government expects that the plan will be self-financing, although it can offer no guarantees since the program is voluntary and its sustainability depends on the uptake. In effect, this means that a deficit situation may be possible, or one that is less than break even. Some concerns have been expressed that this could put pressure on government finances and/or have a detrimental impact on EI premiums, where rates could increase.

Madame la présidente and members of the committee, thank you for your time this afternoon. We look forward to participating in the question-and-answer period.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Thank you.

You should have those two documents I'll be walking you through.

On the first slide, you'll see a little bit about CFIB. We represent more than 105,000 independently owned small and medium-sized business owners across Canada, all of whom are self-employed. Our members come from every region of the country and every sector of the economy. While all 105,000 members are technically self-employed, about 12,000 actually have no paid help.

According to the most recent labour force survey, which you'll see on the next slide, from Statistics Canada, there were over 2.7 million self-employed Canadians, which represents about 16% of the current workforce. The numbers actually went up since September, partially offsetting some of the job losses in that same month. In fact, there has been an increase of more than 100,000 self-employed Canadians in the past 12 months, which is an increase of 3.9%. We see this as good news, as many of these Canadians have opted to go out on their own, and it is from these enterprising individuals that new ventures and jobs will be created.

In fact, Canada, if you look at the next slide, has seen significant growth in self-employment over the last couple of decades, especially among those who are incorporated. The chart on slide 4 is drawn from the 2006 census, which shows that while there was an 8.5% increase in employees between 2001 and 2006, there was an 18.6% increase in the incorporated self-employed during the same period.

Who are these people? Today, about two-thirds of self-employed are men, and about one-third are women. Growth in female self-employment grew dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, far more quickly than among men, but this pace of growth seems to have slowed somewhat during the first half of this decade. It remains healthy, though, with the growth of 8.4% among female self-employed versus 6.5% growth for male self-employed during the same period. This is all outlined in much more detail in the document A Nation of Entrepreneurs.

As you can see on slide 5, the greatest growth of self-employed is among those in the age group 45 to 64 years. This is partly due to the demographic shift in the boomer population, and partly because successful business creation often requires significant technical and management skills, as well as good networks often gained through work experience. As a result, I would suggest that among the special benefits included in Bill C-56 there could be the option to access sickness benefits, which may be a greater attraction to the self-employed, given the age and demographics of this population and the difficulty for some of them to purchase private health care coverage.

So why do people do it? Slide 6 shows the results of a national public opinion poll of 900 small business owners and the reasons why they become self-employed. As you can see, the majority did it to take control of their own decisions. One-third did it for lifestyle choices, to better use their skills and knowledge, or as a path to financial freedom.

These results are not surprising when you couple them with the next slide, which shows that those who are self-employed tend to have the highest levels of job satisfaction. In fact, more than half said they found being self-employed to be very rewarding. Why am I sharing this with you? Because I want to make it clear that the vast majority of people becoming self-employed become self-employed because they want to, not because they have to. Recognizing this is important to understanding how they might approach the idea of accessing EI special benefits on a voluntary basis as proposed in Bill C-56.

We did in fact ask our members earlier this year about the concept of extending EI parental maternity benefits to the self-employed on a voluntary basis. Slide 8 outlines how the question was asked at the time, given how little we knew how about how this proposal would work. While the question focused only on parental maternity benefits, it did address the voluntary aspect of the bill, and therefore I believe it does provide a good indication of what Canada's self-employed may think about Bill C-56.

The next slide shows the results, which are based on more than 10,000 responses to this question. As you can see on the left-hand side, a small majority support the concept, 35% oppose it, 9% are undecided, and 3% have no interest in the issue. When we dissect the data further, we see strong support among female self-employed members, with 67% supporting the concept, and among the smallest business owners, with 60% of those with fewer than five employees also supporting it.

As a result of this member feedback, CFIB supports this bill and recognizes that it fills a gap among the self-employed to access EI special benefits when they choose to do so. However, it is essential that the program remain voluntary and that it meets its objective to be self-financed. These principles are key to CFIB's support of this bill.

It's very important for this program to pay for itself, as the general EI account is about to enter a period of steep premium increases come 2011. I do want to say that the current EI rate freeze, which is in effect until the end of 2010, has been a very welcome policy. It has allowed many business owners to hold onto their people during a difficult economic period. However, it has become clear that the government plans to charge back the two-year EI rate freeze to the EI account, which would require the new Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board to pay back an additional $10 to $13 billion to the government, with interest. The only way they can do that is through increasing EI premiums. As they are limited to annual increases of 15¢ for employees and 21¢ for employers, we foresee maximum premium increases for both employers and employees for many years to come, as illustrated on slide 10.

What makes this whole scenario even more frustrating is that there has been a $57-billion surplus accumulated in the EI account from 1994 to 2008. We would have no objection to the government's requiring the CEIFB to pay for the additional EI costs as a result of the current recession if they would repay the $57 billion surplus first. Instead, the new Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board was provided with $2 billion as an initial reserve that, given the scenario I just described, will be easily wiped out in the first year.

We strongly believe that the federal government has a moral obligation to pay back the surplus accumulated from employers and employees. To do this, the government should absorb additional costs and maintain a premium rate freeze until the $57 billion has been paid back over time.

Given this scenario, it would be unacceptable to add even more costs to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board by subsidizing Bill C-56 through the general EI account. Nor would it be acceptable for the self-employed to wind up subsidizing the general EI account, given the problems it currently faces. As a result, CFIB is calling for strong metrics and regular monitoring of the voluntary EI special benefits program for the self-employed, so that this does not happen. It should be accounted for separately from the general EI account, and premiums for the self-employed should be adjusted accordingly so that it remains self-financed.

In conclusion, the CFIB supports Bill C-56 as long as it remains voluntary and self-financed. There should be strong metrics attached to the program. This means that there should be regular reviews of its costs and revenues and that premiums should be adjusted accordingly, so as not to have it subsidizing the larger EI account and vice versa. We recommend that the bill be analyzed in the context of the skyrocketing EI rates that are coming in 2011.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This is Meeting No. 58 on Tuesday, November 24. On the agenda, in accordance with the Order of Reference of Thursday, November 5, 2009, is the study of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Before hearing our witnesses, however, I would like to extend a very warm welcome to the students from UQAM, where I taught courses a very long time ago.

Welcome to the House of Commons.

I would also like to commend our colleague, Tony Martin, for his presentation this morning and the motion that was agreed to by the other members.

Next, before we really start, let me ask you about a bit of business that we have to do. It won't take long. It has to do with the operational budget request. Actually, it concerns the people who are in front of us. They're here already, but we have to pay for their tickets.

I'm tabling the following motion before this committee:

That the proposed budget in the amount of $7,600 for Bill C-56, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be adopted.

The proposed budget is $7,600.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Savage.

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

But the chief actuary has given assurance to your numbers that this will at most be a $70-million cost to the EI fund. The reason it's important is that we have people who pay EI and have no choice but to do so—employers and employees.

There's a $2 billion fund in this new EI financing board, which is not a lot. The Canadian council of actuaries told us last year that it should be $10 billion to $15 billion. So there's already a draw on this and it seems inevitable that there are going to be rate increases for employers and employees as a result of Bill C-50. It appears there'll be further rate increases required because of Bill C-56, if there's a cost to this program of $70 million.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you.

Our Conservative government knows that families are the foundation of this great country. And now self-employed Canadians will no longer have to choose between their family and work responsibilities. Like all workers, self-employed Canadians facing important life events need peace of mind regarding their financial security. This bill provides them with just that.

Madam Chair, let me briefly explain how the system would work.

Overall, special benefits for the self-employed would mirror those available to salaried employees under the EI system. Under the proposed legislation, self-employed Canadians who opt into the program would pay the same EI premium rate as salaried employees. For 2010, that premium rate would be $1.73 per $100 of insurable earnings. They would not be required to pay the employer portion of premiums as they would not have access to EI regular benefits. They would face similar benefit duration periods, income replacement rates, maximum insurable earnings, treatment of earnings, and waiting periods.

However, there would be some differences. Those who choose to take advantage of special benefits would be required to opt into the program at least one year prior to claiming benefits. They would also be responsible for making premium payments for the tax year in which they apply to the program. For example, someone registering in May 2010 would be able to claim benefits on May 1, 2011.

However, we are providing some room for the first year. Those who apply before April 1, 2010, would be able to collect benefits as early as January 1, 2011.

To access EI special benefits, self-employed individuals would need to earn a minimum of $6,000 during the preceding calendar year. As the self-employed do not report hours of work, this number has been arrived at by converting 600 hours on an earnings basis using a representative minimum wage of $10 an hour, since 600 hours is the number of hours required by salaried workers to access existing EI special benefits.

It's important to note that the self-employed could opt out of the program as long as they've never claimed benefits. If they've claimed benefits, however, they would need to continue to contribute on self-employed earnings for as long as they're self-employed. This treats the self-employed in the same way that the regular EI program treats paid employees. We think this is fair.

In the province of Quebec, our Conservative government is offering the self-employed that ability to take advantage of the sickness and compassionate care benefits for the first time in history. Currently, the only choice Quebeckers have if they need to take care of a gravely ill relative, or if they fall ill themselves, is private insurance which can be very expensive.

Our government is offering peace of mind with a more affordable option. This bill takes into account that, in Quebec, self-employed residents already have access to maternity and parental benefits through the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan.

Rates in Quebec have been adjusted to take into account the provincial maternity and parental benefit plan. Self-employed workers in Quebec who choose to take advantage of the program would pay the same EI premiums as other employees in the province. The 2010 EI premium rate in Quebec will be $1.36 per $100 of insurable earnings.

I want to reinforce that the decision to opt into the EI program is entirely voluntary. There is no obligation for the self-employed to take advantage of these new benefits.

This bill is yet another example of how our government is providing support and choice to Canadian families. Our government believes that self-employed Canadians should not have to choose between their families and their business responsibilities, and this bill will have a significant impact on their lives and their families.

Don't just take it from me: the response to this bill has been overwhelmingly positive. The Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Coalition of BC Businesses, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, and the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association are just some examples of organizations that represent self-employed Canadians and that support this important bill.

This is one of the most significant enhancements to the EI program in a decade. It is part of a series of timely enhancements that we've already made to ensure that the employment insurance program remains responsive to the needs of Canadians.

Our economic action plan is geared towards helping Canadian workers and their families get through this global economic downturn. We're providing a timely and unprecedented investment of $8.3 billion to strengthen EI benefits and enhance the availability of training, including outside EI.

In closing, Madam Chair, I'd like to thank the committee for its work on our last bill, Bill C-50, which recently passed. It provides between five and 20 additional weeks of EI to long-tenured workers who've worked hard and paid premiums for years, but who now need a hand up.

I urge all members of this committee to support self-employed Canadians and their families by supporting Bill C-56.

I'd now be pleased to answer your questions. Merci.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's with a great deal of pleasure that I appear today to discuss our government's latest initiative to help Canadian workers and their families, Bill C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act.

Prime Minister Harper committed in 2008 to extend maternity and parental benefits to the self-employed. He said then:

Self-employed Canadians--and those who one day hope to be--shouldn't have to choose between starting a family and starting a business because of government policy. They should be able to pursue their dreams--both as entrepreneurs and as parents.

After additional consultations and listening directly to self-employed Canadians, we recognize the need to go even further and extend access to all EI special benefits.

Currently, self-employed Canadians have little or no income protection to cope with major life events such as the birth or adoption of a child, a parent or a child falling gravely ill, or even falling ill themselves. The Fairness For the Self-Employed Act will provide all EI special benefits--maternity, parental, sickness, and compassionate care--to self-employed Canadians on a voluntary basis. We've not just met our commitment; we've exceeded it.

Public research reinforces that the majority of self-employed Canadians want access to EI special benefits. In fact, just the other week, I received a petition from almost 1,000 Canadians asking for access to EI special benefits.

Self-employed Canadians asked for this bill, and for the first time in Canadian history, we are giving them just that. It's the fair and right thing to do and it's also good family policy.

Self-employed Canadians total 2.6 million in Canada and form 15% of the total labour market, and this number is growing. They're an integral part of our economy and are key contributors to innovation, investment, and job creation. They are playing a vital role in our continued productivity and in our economic recovery.

The self-employed are a very diverse group. They include farmers, tradespeople, those who run home businesses, lawyers, architects, and people who run our corner stores, to name just a few.

Increasingly, the self-employed are women. The number of enterprises led by women is expected to top one million next year.

Access to these benefits is especially important for them: one-third of self-employed women in Canada are of child-bearing age. This bill will mean that women will no longer have to delay or forgo having children altogether for fear it would be impossible to handle both responsibilities at the same time. It will mean that self-employed Canadians will no longer have to miss their babies' first words or first steps.

And self-employed Canadians will now have the option to take care of an elderly parent or a child who has fallen gravely ill. Everyone in this room knows the importance of spending the last few weeks with a loved one and being able to care for them.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

With your permission, Madam Chair, I'd like to point out that Bill C-56 concerns women who are self-employed, if I'm not mistaken. However, we have discussed the situation of these women and we came to the unanimous conclusion, I believe, that they should benefit from programs, maternity leave, employment insurance when they are sick, and so forth. This bill specifically addresses women in that situation. I think that this would be most welcome and that it would be beneficial.

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

It seems to me we'd have a better idea of that on Thursday. I don't think we knew that we'd be doing Bill C-56 as quickly as we are. I wasn't aware the minister was even confirmed for Thursday until yesterday. I think we should see where we are, make sure we get the witnesses in over the next couple of days, and make a decision on that on Thursday.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, I'd like to propose a friendly amendment. If I understood correctly, Ms. Neville would like to have the committee hold a joint special session with the Standing Committee on Human Resources, but without it being part of our usual calendar. The objective of this meeting would be to learn about the provisions of Bill C-56 that could have an impact on the lives of women in terms of employment insurance. Did I understand that correctly?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I will call the question.

This is what I think is going to happen.

I am going to call the question. If the vote for Mr. Savage's motion is not unanimous and if the motion is defeated, there will then be an informal meeting between Mr. Savage, Mr. Komarnicki and anyone else who wants to attend to discuss how we can study Bill C-56 unofficially by inviting the members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I call the question on Mr. Savage's motion.

(Motion negatived).

The next step is for those two gentlemen--and anyone else who wants to join us, as I take it the meeting is an open one--to get together after 5:30 and make some kind of proposition so that we can move forward.

It's my feeling that everybody wants to have members from both committees present, but we don't quite know how, so we'll let them thrash it out between the two of them and come back to us with a suggestion.

We have 20 minutes left. I'd like to discuss how we are going to tackle the three or possibly four days that remain to us for Bill C-56. I've been away for a little while, so I'm not altogether sure. I'd like to hear from the clerk exactly where we are and what he suggests to us.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay. We'll wait for everyone to get a copy.

The motion reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee holds a joint meeting with the Standing Committee of Human Resources and Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to study the subject matter of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Before we put the question, I have two things. One, I'm going to give Mr. Vellacott the chance to speak, and two—this is only a suggestion, and I know I have a motion in front of me—I would like to ask Mr. Savage to unofficially come back to us before Thursday with a newer proposal that takes into account what has happened at the status of women committee and, given the discussion that has taken place around this table, something that is more palatable to both sides of the table so that we can move forward.

I am very worried about the fact that we have three or four meetings coming up for Bill C-56, that we all want Bill C-56 to be tabled by November 27, and we have a very short timeline on this. At the same time, we have a motion that is interesting and important, so I don't want to take time away from any future meetings to once again discuss this motion for a length of time, because it's self-defeating. We can discuss whether we want the status of women committee with us, but then if we have no time to discuss the issue, what is the point? Do you see what I mean?

I'm going to give Mr. Vellacott the floor. I would rather not go to a vote. I would rather that we ask unofficially Mr. Savage to come back to us with a new and revised motion or suggestion.

Mr. Vellacott.

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

We've agreed to meet next week and we can add more time if we need to. We've agreed to meet; we haven't agreed on the witnesses we're going to hear. We haven't indicated, and it hasn't been indicated to me, that this would take longer to do.

When I came up with the motion, we didn't know that Bill C-56 was going to be jammed through the committee like a sausage. We had assumed that there would be normal hearings and that some time would be taken. We're now trying to do our best to accommodate the needs of the government so that it gets into place before the end of the year.

I don't think there's anything sinister in this motion. I don't know if you're afraid of women; I'm not sure what the reason is that you don't want to do it. It's not going to take any more time and it's not going to cost any money. However, Madam Chair, if it works with the government, I am prepared to hold on to this and perhaps chat with Ed to see if we can come to an agreement.

I also want to hear what discussion has happened at the status of women committee to indicate their view of this. Perhaps we can work this out in a way that makes us all happy away from this table.

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

If we take out the word “joint“, it does not mean the same thing at all because, at the moment, each party can replace one of its members. We can do that without passing a motion. So that aspect is removed.

I like Mr. Savage's motion because I think it would be interesting to have a working session using the experience of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Through their work, members of that committee have a perspective that we perhaps would not see when we come to study Bill C-56. Let us hold a working session like that, with all of us. The problem is not deciding who will be in the chair. That is simple; we could say that it would be the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for an hour and our chair for the other hour. It could be like that. That is simple. We have to decide whether it would be useful, and I think it would.

Second, can it be done? Again, I think it can. Do we have to do it in our present situation? I am less sure about that. We could perhaps decide that one or two representatives of each party on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women could come to meet with us, but I am not ruling out everyone being there. But I think that we have to find out the keys to their understanding of Bill C-56.

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

I'll answer that.

If we're prepared to have all kinds of meetings next week for Bill C-56, I don't think anybody would object to 10 minutes to have a vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

There's only a problem if we're going back to the 24th or the 26th. I'd like to remind you that we did say that on those days we would be discussing Bill C-56. At this point, do we wish to take time away from Bill C-56 in order to come back to this motion? I do ask that question.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

The trip is scheduled for the first week in December, according to the chronology that reads as follows: study of Bill C-56, November 19, 24 and 26. Report Bill C-56 to the House, no later than November 27. Travel to the north and to the west, the first week in December; when we are back, study and finish the study of Bill C-304, December 8 and 10, 2009. There is the timeline. It is almost exactly the same as the one that was read at the very beginning. So I call the question once more.

(Motion agreed to.)

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

For me anyway, I tabled the motion based on some very practical realities that are in front of us. First of all, the government wants to get Bill C-56 through committee and back into the House before any travel is made. It's as simple as that. That is what Mr. Komarnicki told me. And he can make that happen. All he has to do is talk to his whip or his House leader and we don't travel.

We know the process here. Committee can approve and the Liaison Committee can approve, but if any one of the whips decides unilaterally that travel is not going to happen, it will not happen. That happened last June when the plug was pulled on a planned trip to Ireland because the government whip decided that it wasn't going to allow that travel. That can happen anytime, and it's within the power of the government or any of us. The reality is that we're not travelling until we get Bill C-56.

The other question, then, is how committed are we and how strongly do we feel about the travel for poverty? I heard many say it's important to get the travel done so that we finish that piece of the work, so that the analysts can do their work over Christmas and be ready with their report in the early new year. I suggest that's a good plan, that it is what we need to do. We've been at this now for over two years, and it's time to bring it to some conclusion.

So when do we travel? Do we travel the first week in December or do we travel the second week in December? The first week, in my view, makes the most sense. The last week is always a pretty hairy week, for those who have been around for a while. There are things happening, there are votes, there's commotion, there's anticipation of the government falling and all that kind of stuff, and the whips tend to want us here. So I think the only week we have left in terms of travel is that first week in December.

That's why I'm making the suggestion that I have. I'm willing to make the commitment. I understand what Mr. Savage and Mr. Lessard are saying in terms of our hands being tied at this committee. I also understand what Mr. Komarnicki is saying about needing to get this done as quickly as we can, because at the end of the day it's not us who are going to be affected. We will still have our jobs, hopefully for a while longer, and we won't have to worry about EI for a little bit. But there are lots of people out there in this very difficult economy who are waiting for this to happen and be available to them. I think we owe it to them to, first of all, do a fulsome job to make sure this piece of work is the best possible coming out of here at this time. We've all seen where we've rushed bills and made mistakes and had to come back later and fix them. We don't want to be in that position again.

I'm pretty confident that if we do our work and do it in the spirit we've been working in at this committee over the last couple of years, we can actually get that done. That way, we meet all of the very significant and important requirements that have been laid out by all of us here today.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It's not something we would be prepared to entertain, because Bill C-56 is important. It's important that we have it in the House and hopefully through both houses before we break for the year, because it has some significant timelines, including January 1, when we're not here. It's very important that we proceed expeditiously for the benefit of those who are self-employed.

Even dealing with it by way of an extra week is impinging on time and expeditiousness. Having said that, we would not want to delay it another week because of the danger posed to the bill itself, making it through both houses.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Before I ask Mr. Komarnicki the question, I would just like to remind you of something.

I'd like to remind everyone that what is in the motion here is the possibility of eight hours of discussion and witnesses: November 19, November 24, November 26, and another day if needed. That's eight hours. Or we could possibly even prolong it if that's what the members decide to do when we come to that.

So we're talking about eight hours additional on Bill C-56. However, Mr. Komarnicki, Mr. Lessard has made a suggestion. First of all, I have a motion here. I have to deal with that motion, but I'd like to remind Mr. Komarnicki that Mr. Lessard has made a suggestion that we keep the calendar as is in terms of traveling time and that we deal with Bill C-56 when we come back.

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

I have the same concerns as Mr. Savage.

On the poverty question, when we planned our trip, of course we wanted to have finished our work first. But we also wanted to make sure that the drafters are able to enjoy the holiday season, and to do their work in January, when we will not be here. In my opinion, that agenda is risky because it does not ensure that the trip will happen before the holidays. It also wastes the drafters' time, time that they could use doing the work we expect of them. Let us not forget the consensus we have that this work is of the highest importance.

I have to say that the parameters of Bill C-56and Bill C-304 include elements, factors that must come into play and that must normally relieve poverty a little, if it is done well. I am not sure that we will succeed in doing good work on Bill C-56 if we rush things. That is my second argument.

That is also where I share Mr. Savage's position. We also want to hear witnesses. The people in the trenches, the self-employed, have their representatives and we must hear from them. We must also hear from experts. At very least, we must hear from the chief actuary who administers the employment insurance fund.

In the opposition, we are always concerned about costs. We do it openly, but we must get answers. The principle of getting the bill passed is not the problem. It is new and interesting; it is the first time that self-employed workers have acquired rights under the employment insurance plan. We recognize how interesting that is. So, since it is worth doing, let us make sure that we do it well. It seems that there may be people whom it is intended to include, but who are actually excluded. We should check that as well.

I still have one concern, Madam Chair. I agree with postponing our study on Bill C-304 until after our trip to the west. We certainly agree with that. But, as for the agenda, I wonder whether we should not stay with the trip next week and carefully consider Bill C-56 when we get back. That would not delay things very much, as long as we can start to study this bill on Thursday.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I should just add that we talked about having Bill C-56 reported to the House.

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

The NDP members will be in caucus that week as well. January is a difficult month to find time. People are doing caucus work and constituency work, and some of us are spending time with family.

I would like to see us do what Mr. Komarnicki has suggested, and I want to hear a bit more, maybe, from Mike on this. But I want to maybe put a motion on the table so that we can deal with it, that we defer the study of Bill C-304 until we come back from our western travel, that we deal with Bill C-56 Thursday of this week and next week—

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I've sat quietly listening. I understand the importance of Bill C-56. There's no question about the need to do a good job on that bill, because many of us--the Standing Committee on the Status of Women when I was on it, and of course our own Liberal women's caucus--have been supportive of extending EI to the self-employed for the purposes for which it does.... I think we need the time to give it the right attention, as Mr. Savage said.

But having said that, I really would encourage the committee not to postpone the travel until the next year. I think we need to finish it by early December and then allow for the researchers to begin to write something. Otherwise what we're saying is that poverty is really always on the back burner, it's really not an issue, and we really aren't interested. We can just put it aside every time something else comes up. It's not that the other things aren't important, but this is the overarching huge something else that would influence or impact on the changes to EI, or impact on housing. It's really the kind of piece of work that impacts on all of this other stuff that we're now doing in pieces.

I would encourage us to not put it off and to finish it the first week of December and be able to give direction to the researchers to actually then draft a report.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

The committee's responsibility, obviously, is to get Bill C-56 legislation addressed as soon as possible. Considering Mr. Savage's comments and in light of the Christmas scheduling and different activities on the Hill, is it possible we could defer the travel to January, when we return?

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

Bill C-56.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Are you talking about Bill C-56 or Bill C-304 when you say you'll do everything you can?

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

As I say, I'm not going to object to that general schedule. This is the committee that has been asked to look at Bill C-56, and all parties in the House have indicated general support for the bill. It's a significantly technical piece of legislation that affects a number of departments. I have a motion before this committee that we have a joint meeting with the Standing Committee on the Status of Women who've done a lot of work in this regard. I'm prepared to accelerate the meeting schedule to get as many meetings in as we can by the end of next week. However, we cannot as a committee honestly prejudge the result of those hearings.

I'll do everything I can to push us along. We are generally in support of the employment insurance extension of maternal, parental, and sickness benefits. We've talked about that for many years. I spent part of my summer talking about it with the minister. We have to accept the fact that there may be some reasons that we would have to either have more hearings or more work in terms of amendments, but I'm prepared to accept the fact that we'll do everything we can to get it through this committee by the end of next week.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

Let me recapitulate Mr. Komarnicki's suggestion. It is a suggestion.

If I understood correctly—and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Komarnicki—you suggested that this Thursday, November 19, followed by November 24 and 26, which is next Tuesday and next Thursday, we continue and finish Bill C-56 and report it back to the House, which would allow us to go on the trip north in the first week of December, being November 30, December 1, and so on. We would come back and we would then work on Bill C-304 and finish that before December 11, the last day of the session this year.

Is that what you're suggesting, Mr. Komarnicki?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm largely in concurrence with what people are saying around the table in terms of this motion and the deferment of it to a more suitable time. I want to remind the committee that we also have a motion to deal with that is very important and very time-sensitive regarding the twentieth anniversary of the unanimous declaration of Parliament, which I think we have to get to today and come to some resolution on. In light of the report that came out today about food banks and the increased necessity of food banks, poverty is a huge issue in this country, particularly among children. As parliamentarians, we all have to address this, and I want to make sure we get to that today.

I'm prepared to deal, as Mr. Komarnicki was suggesting, with Bill C-56 expeditiously. I wasn't keen on the whole way it has been handled. Mr. Komarnicki does his job well as a parliamentary secretary and normally keeps us very much in the loop, but I hadn't heard anything in terms of moving the travel. It would seem to me that it would make a lot more sense to keep that travel, which I assume is largely booked, and use next week to get witnesses lined up for the following week. Then we could be assured that we would pass Bill C-56 through the committee on, say, December 3 or 4.

I'm prepared to have this discussion, but I do want to remind committee members that we have a very important motion on the floor and many people in Canada are interested in the outcome of that.

Thank you.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

First of all, I had objections to the deferment, but then I have heard Mr. Lessard say that 15 or more amendments have come in that we hadn't had. I've heard Mr. Martin say that he understands we want to get some government legislation through quickly—specifically Bill C-56—before the year is out. Those are issues of concern.

But if we're able to agree that we would do Bill C-56 starting this Thursday and concluding, as far as I'm concerned, on Tuesday and Thursday of the week following and report it to the House.... I don't know that we would need a third meeting, but if that were necessary, it could be arranged, and so be it. That would cancel the travel for next week and move it to December 1, which seems reasonable. After that, we could deal with this bill more fully at that point, and before we broke for the end of the session. That makes good sense.

With that understanding, I would certainly be prepared to consider a motion like this and perhaps have Mr. Kennedy withdraw his present motion, if he were so inclined. It would still achieve what he wants to achieve, basically.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

In the interest of the good harmony that exists in this committee in trying to get as much done as we can and accommodate people, and understanding that a significant number of important amendments have come forward with respect to Ms. Davies' bill that she wants to look at in all seriousness, we should give the necessary due consideration to her request for a deferral until a later date. It is a serious piece of public business that we're doing on that front. It isn't something she brought to the table; other parties have brought this to the table, and they have every right to.

I would suggest, in light of some of the other business that is before the committee.... I thought we would have this discussion later in the committee about getting from now to the end of the year. We have some government business that we have to do because it takes precedence. That's Bill C-56, which we start next Thursday. According to the schedule we were looking at until now, we were supposed to travel the following week to western Canada to study poverty. That's now a challenge, because understandably the government wants to see Bill C-56 through committee and back into the House before the break.

My suggestion, for others to consider, is that we do Bill C-56 on Thursday next week and sit as many meetings as we need to in order get it done; that we travel west the first week of December; and that when we come back, in that week before the break we deal with Bill C-304.

I put that on the table for people's consideration.

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

It is even wiser, Madam Chair, because one of the reasons why the committee has been asked to postpone our trip for the study on poverty is that the government wants us to study BillC-56as a priority. I do not think that we can do the clause-by-clause study of this bill today because I doubt that we can consider so many amendments in two hours.

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus)

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question because it is an important one.

He is right when he says that a sector of the economy that has been affected by successive layoffs and where workers needed to draw EI benefits over the years does not necessarily benefit from the extension that has just been given. However, one cannot say that Quebec workers will not benefit as much as other Canadians from the improvements included in Bill C-50. Tens of thousands of Quebec families will benefit from the bill and that is the reason why I was so disappointed to see that the Bloc voted against the measure. I really do not understand why the Bloc did that. Earlier, I alluded to the ideological approach of the Conservatives. Sometimes, the Bloc also has an ideological approach to issues.

As for Bill C-56, it has already been shown that the contributions will vary from one jurisdiction to the other. Since Quebec already pays, the contributions asked from Quebec workers will be lower than in the other provinces. I can illustrate that with the example of daycare centres that have received subsidies from the federal government. Since Quebec already had its system in place, the money was simply transferred to the province. On that issue, we succeeded.

As for the member's last question, I will say that, yes, we must once again make major reforms in the EI system in the best interest of protecting the entire population.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of our colleague from the NDP.

As we know, Bill C-50 does not meet the needs of the forestry workers in Quebec. They have told us so. The bill was designed more for automobile workers in Ontario. We are not against that, but we wanted the government to support the forestry workers as well. Bill C-56 does not help self-employed workers in Quebec at all, since they already have access to a parental leave insurance plan.

My question is quite simple. Does the member not agree that the patchwork reform of the employment insurance plan, proposed by the Conservative Party in Bill C-50, is of no help to workers in Quebec?

Second Reading

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to debate the merits or demerits of Bill C-395 today.

Let me begin by acknowledging that labour disputes do affect Canadians, and sometimes Canadians do find themselves unemployed at the end of such disputes. My colleague from the Bloc obviously cares about these workers, as do all members of the House. I am sure of this, but we must go beyond good intentions. As the old saying goes, good intentions can lead us down a path on which we would be better not to go.

We must probe the potential policy and legal impacts of these proposed amendments on the Employment Insurance Act. We must ensure that any changes to the employment insurance system are based on hard evidence, and we must look at the practical facts on the ground. When we conduct this investigation, the implications of Bill C-395 become troubling on several levels. Let me discuss some of my concerns.

First, let us deal with the practical facts on the ground. In the history of law and legislation, we have seen that another old saying is also true, that often extreme cases make bad law. I recognize that this bill is intended to protect employees who are caught in a lengthy labour dispute that ends in a firm's closure. This result of course is regrettable and often difficult on the workers affected.

We should view this in context, however. Most labour disputes are relatively short and they rarely end in the closure of a firm. Between 2003 and 2009, for example, a little more than one per cent, only one per cent, of the total number of strikes ended in a firm's closure. Moreover, the average length of a strike that ended in a firm's closure was 110 days. For lockouts, the figure was 116 days. As the parliamentary secretary noted, these figures average out to 16 weeks. That leaves plenty of time for employees to qualify for benefits under the current 52-week requirement.

By these comments, I do not want to suggest that I am or our government is unsympathetic to the plight of the unemployed, far from it. Simply, we need to take account of the facts to inform our decision-making. Here are some of the facts.

The Employment Insurance Act does not preclude workers from accepting other employment during a labour dispute. The act allows employees to accumulate the work hours required to establish a claim for benefits. Specifically, through the variable entrance requirement, employees need between 420 and 700 insurable hours to qualify for regular benefits, depending upon the unemployment rate in the applicant's region.

In other words, using existing provisions of the act, employees in a labour dispute could qualify for benefits by building up their hours through work elsewhere. For this reason alone, the provisions in Bill C-395 are inadvisable.

Let us also recall that the employment insurance system is an insurance-based program. It is designed to provide benefits to workers if they are unable to work, whether because they are unemployed, sick, pregnant, caring for a newborn or adopted child, or caring for a gravely ill family member. This regime is supported by the premiums paid by both workers and employers.

When a worker meets the qualifying requirement, benefits kick in. It is that simple. The proposal before the House goes against the guiding principle that the EI program should remain neutral during a labour dispute.

My colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain pointed out correctly that allowing the provision of benefits to workers, paid for in part by employers, during a labour dispute would disrupt the system's balanced treatment, tilting the system in favour of workers in a situation where they are negotiating with management. This bill would make changes such that the negotiating position of unions and workers would be unfairly improved at the cost of employers, who pay 58% of employment insurance premiums. I simply do not think this change is something we should undertake.

There are other related aspects of this bill which I do not think are wise. Specifically, the bill proposes to change how the EI program calculates a qualifying period in the event of a labour dispute that leads to work stoppage. As members know, the qualifying period is the time in which a claimant must accumulate enough hours of insurable employment to establish a claim for benefits.

Currently it is generally the 52 weeks preceding the beginning of a claim. In some cases the period can be shorter when there was a prior claim. The bill would extend the qualifying period to be the same as the period of the labour dispute. This would allow employees to be eligible for employment insurance benefits if they are laid off after a lengthy labour dispute is resolved.

Existing provisions allow for the extension of a qualifying period to up to 104 weeks in certain situations. These exceptions include situations in which individuals are physically unable to work, such as quarantine and sickness. Labour disputes are not considered an exception, because individuals are not physically prevented from working. They could work somewhere else. The proposals in Bill C-395 would therefore deviate from the EI program's basic insurance principle, that there must be a reasonable proximity of timing and correlation of value between premiums paid and benefits disbursed.

These are the reasons I think this bill is not wise. I welcome the chance to speak a little bit about some actions that I do think are wise. Those are the actions of this Conservative government both recently and as part of Canada's economic action plan. Since coming to office and particularly since the beginning of the economic downturn, our government has acted decisively to support unemployed Canadians and help them get back to work, but we have done so based on sound evidence that the changes are in the best interests of all Canadians.

Through Canada's economic action plan, our government has introduced measures that support all unemployed Canadians. Specifically, we have temporarily extended the duration of EI benefits by five weeks. We have made it easier to take part in work-sharing agreements, which are helping to protect the jobs of almost 167,000 Canadians. We are also helping young people get certified in skilled trades, and helping long-tenured workers make the transition into new careers.

We have frozen the employment insurance premium rates for 2010 so they will be at the same rate as this year, which is the lowest level in a quarter of a century, and we are providing an additional $1.5 billion to the provinces and territories to help support skills training. Our government has also recently passed measures in Bill C-50 that will help long-tenured workers who lost their jobs because of the global recession. These measures will now start to help ensure that approximately 190,000 long-tenured workers who have paid into the EI system for years are provided between five and 20 extra weeks of EI while they search for new employment. Surely we can identify with likely one or two businesses in every riding throughout this House. This much-needed support is in addition to the five weeks of EI included in the economic action plan. This is an important step for Canadian workers who have worked hard, have paid taxes their whole lives and who find themselves in economic hardship.

Our government recognizes that the self-employed are an integral part of our economy. We believe that self-employed Canadians should not have to choose between their family and business responsibilities. That is why in 2008 our government committed to extending maternity and paternity benefits to the self-employed. On November 3, 2009 we introduced Bill C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, which provides all EI special benefits, including maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits to self-employed Canadians on a voluntary basis.

We have not just met our commitment to these 2.6 million Canadians, we have exceeded it. Bill C-56 has received a very positive response from a variety of stakeholders: the Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, the Canadian Real Estate Association. I could go on and on.

The government has acted responsibly to enhance the employment insurance program, particularly since the global economic slowdown. For all these reasons, I cannot support the proposed amendments, and I urge all members of the House to join me in my opposition to the bill.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I was once again interrupted on Friday by question period. The questions were excellent. However, given the government's answers, I have to say that we might have been better off listening to speeches about bills.

However, question period did give me an opportunity to hear the Minister of Public Works and Government Services say that the Bloc Québécois is always against everything. He was not listening right before question period. I had just said that the Bloc Québécois would support Bill C-51. We are completely in favour of this measure, the act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

I would like to summarize what I said during the first three minutes of my speech. I said that Bill C-51 would implement the renovation tax credit. That was one of the proposals in the recovery program that the Bloc Québécois released when Parliament resumed. Every party in the House but the Conservative government recognized that we were in the middle of an economic crisis.

During the 2008 election campaign, the Conservative Party denied the possibility that such an economic crisis would hit us here, even though our American neighbours—with whom we conduct a great deal of trade, of course—were in the midst of a major crisis, which unfortunately, is still not completely over.

Everyone knew that the whole world was facing an economic crisis and that Canada, Quebec and all the provinces would inevitably be affected. No one was happy about that. However, we needed to take off our rose coloured glasses and prepare for the worst, and also bring in concrete, effective measures to deal with and mitigate the effects of the crisis.

That is why the Bloc Québécois presented such a plan, which was, I might add, commended by the Minister of Finance. The minister said the Bloc Québécois was the only party in the House to bring forward concrete measures, and he thanked us for doing so. However, thanking us is as far as he went, given that, when he presented his budget, there was not much left of the important measures the Bloc had developed and proposed.

Bill C-51 also introduces a first-time homebuyers' tax credit. That is a good measure that was also proposed by the Bloc Québécois in our most recent election platform, during the election campaign that ended on October 14, 2008.

Bill C-51 implements Canada's international commitments to the International Monetary Fund, which were signed in 2008.

It also includes some other measures, such as the temporary home renovation tax credit, the first-time home buyers' tax credit and an increase in the tax relief provided by the working income tax benefit.

What I also liked about Bill C-51, since I am the Bloc Québécois critic for agriculture and agri-food, is that it will also extend the existing tax deferral available to farmers in prescribed drought regions to farmers who dispose of breeding livestock because of flood or excessive moisture, and it will designate the eligible flood or drought regions between 2007 and 2009.

We are not talking about a measure that will make all our farmers rich overnight, but this adjustment will prove very beneficial when a catastrophe hits our farmers. In addition, this bill amends the customs tariff to relax the conditions relating to temporarily imported shipping containers.

These are the main measures contained in Bill C-51.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance just now and at first reading of the bill and also when the home renovation tax credit was announced, touting this as the eighth wonder of the world and that the Canadian and Quebec economies would get back on track with this home renovation tax credit.

However, they should not exaggerate. I realize that this government tends to use every opportunity for the marketing and branding of the Conservative Party, with its logo and all the rest.

This measure alone will not put an end to the economic crisis and solve all the problems that have arisen in recent months and years. They should not exaggerate and consider it the be-all and end-all.

There a number of things missing from the government's deficit control plan and we can discuss these in the next few minutes.

The federal government's comprehensive plan to fight the recession is incomplete and poorly targeted. However, given that the measures in Bill C-51 are good for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois, in keeping with its responsible approach, will support this bill.

With respect to the home renovation tax credit in particular, as I was saying, in the first phase of our recovery plan, we had proposed introducing a similar home renovation tax credit. We emphasized the conversion of oil furnaces to more energy efficient equipment. We had a very specific plan for decreasing our dependence on oil.

This measure, in addition to helping reduce our dependence on oil would also have rapidly injected money into the economy. The measure we are debating today, the government's Bill C-51, does not specifically target energy efficient retrofits but is still an effective means of quickly stimulating the economy.

The government could have gone farther, as I said, and introduced a real environmental plan that would have stimulated the economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing our dependence on oil.

The first-time home buyers' tax credit is also interesting, because in our 2008 election platform, we had proposed a tax credit for first-time home buyers and called for such a program. The measure the government has introduced is not as generous as what we proposed, but we feel that it is a step in the right direction. That is why we also support this measure.

Buying a home is a big step for many families. It allows homeowners to build equity and benefit from the appreciated value of their home. Quebec is significantly behind the rest of Canada in this area. Many young families often have a hard time saving for a down payment to purchase their first home. In addition, since most people who are active in the workforce see their income increase over time, they often have to wait a while before they can purchase a property.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing that the government give interest-free loans of up to $10,000 for first-time home buyers. That would have been a very significant measure, although, as I said, the tax credit is clearly a step forward.

I spoke earlier about the last election campaign. I imagine that many of my colleagues in this House and many candidates in the last election had the opportunity to meet with real estate agents, because they demanded action on the issue of first-time home buyers. While I was campaigning, I had the chance to meet with people throughout Quebec, including people in my own riding. We talked to them and listened to their suggestions. This proposal that first-time home buyers receive interest-free loans of up to $10,000 was very well received by the people I met with. They felt it could be an efficient and effective way to help people buy their first home. Real estate agents were very much in favour of this measure.

If this measure were implemented, it would complement the tax credit proposed by the government in Bill C-51 and make it easier for people to purchase their first home. Then we would have a comprehensive home buyers' program.

In terms of the economic measures presented in the budget, some of which would be implemented by Bill C-51, a bill that would put the tax credits into effect, as I started out saying just after question period, the government denied that there was an economic crisis during the last election campaign. Conservative members unfortunately showed up empty handed for the economic statement last November, which sparked a crisis. I will not dwell on it, but we came very close at one point to having a coalition government, and to returning to the polls.

They finally presented some measures, even if they were not complete, as I was saying.

We did our homework. We presented a stimulus plan that had four objectives: tighten the social safety net and restore confidence to the public, which was experiencing—and still is—an economic crisis; stimulate employment and investment; support Quebec and the provinces; and stimulate strategic spending on things like measures to reduce oil dependency.

The OECD suggested that countries with the means to do so should provide income support for workers who lose their jobs. The best way to do that, of course, is through the employment insurance system. Economists agreed that one of the best ways to stimulate the economy was to help the least fortunate and in particular, to help those who, unfortunately, because of the economic crisis, lost their jobs. Needless to say, in the forestry sector, for example, people would have benefited from more extensive and flexible measures regarding employment insurance.

We suggested improving the employment insurance system by making it easier for people who lose their jobs to collect benefits. Our proposed changes would have enabled 148,000 more people to collect benefits every year. If we eliminate the waiting period, which is something the Bloc Québécois and other parties have been calling for for a long time, people will not have to wait 14 days for their cheques. We also suggested helping the most vulnerable with an investment of about $6 billion to help seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $110 per month. And we suggested helping middle-class families by doubling the GST credit for 2009.

We know that the government has put economic stimulus measures in place. A lot of money was invested to help Ontario's auto sector. We were never against helping that sector, but according to the statistics, it is clear that the government helped Ontario at the expense of Quebec and the other provinces, but especially at Quebec's expense because its forestry sector got nothing. At any rate, there is many a slip twixt cup and lip when it comes to what Ontarians got. As of now, 100% of the $9.7 billion—nearly $10 billion—in direct federal cash for the auto industry has been spent. About 80% of the $70 million allocation has been spent developing new markets for the forestry industry across Canada. There is still a huge difference between $10 billion in support for auto workers and $70 million for the forestry sector across Canada. Moreover, while 100% of the auto sector's money has been spent, 20% of the amount announced for the forestry sector has not yet been disbursed.

So, for its economic recovery plan, it would have been in the government's interest to listen to Quebec, the provinces, the opposition parties, unions, workers and the National Assembly of Quebec. They all made urgent requests to ensure that a real economic stimulus package would be introduced, particularly for the manufacturing and forestry sectors. The Quebec forestry industry employs over 88,000 workers and is an economic driving force in many regions of Quebec.

I was talking about employment insurance earlier. We heard some good news yesterday. Unfortunately, it does not have to do with the unemployment rate. There was some bad news on that, since it increased. The good news was that here in this House, a majority—except the Conservatives, unfortunately—voted in favour of Bill C-308 introduced by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. That bill will now go to committee. It includes several measures for a complete overhaul in the context of an economic stimulus plan. It would have been great if the government had supported those changes, which are more comprehensive than the piecemeal changes it wanted to make in several different bills.

The Bloc Québécois bill proposes improving access to the system and establishing a 360-hour threshold for everyone, which would make it easier for women and young people, who are often the most likely people to lose their jobs, as well as people with unstable jobs, to access benefits. In addition, Bill C-308 proposes a benefit rate increase from 55% of earnings to 60%.

It also recommends amendments that would give self-employed workers access on a voluntary basis to all employment insurance benefits, unlike the Conservatives' Bill C-56, which offers self-employed workers access to special benefits only. Our bill contains measures that are not only practical, but comprehensive and very effective in helping the unemployed. This is what the Conservative government could have done.

We have no problem supporting Bill C-51. It is hard to be against motherhood and apple pie, even if the pie is not all there. This bill provides one piece of the pie that will help us, namely, tax credits, including the home renovation tax credit. I cannot say that people are lining up at my three constituency offices to ask for information about these measures, but I would be lying if I said that I had not answered any questions from my constituents about this tax credit.

Obviously, we are pleased to provide them with information, and some people I know have begun to consider applying for this tax credit. That is why we are agreeing to promote this type of measure by voting in favour of Bill C-51.

Employment Insurance

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-50 does not meet the needs of Quebec's forestry workers. It was designed to help Ontario's auto workers. Similarly, Bill C-56 will not really help Quebec's self-employed workers, since they already have access to the Quebec parental insurance plan. Furthermore, the premiums required are too high compared to the benefits offered.

Does the government not see that this piecemeal reform of the employment insurance system is not working, and that a complete overhaul is needed?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, there is no question this member raised a very technical point during her original question; however, today she speaks more generally.

As she may well know, we have Bill C-50 that would extend benefits by 5 to 20 weeks, which I understand has passed through the Senate and is receiving royal assent, or has. There is Bill C-56 for the self-employed, five extra weeks of benefits across the board, and work-sharing programs. Those are all significant improvements and there is the freezing of the EI rate.

Specifically to the question she raised and in dealing with the situation described especially in her original comments, HRSDC and Service Canada take many steps to help employers and Canadian workers. Whenever there is a threat of a company facing mass layoffs, Service Canada immediately moves in to work with the company, with the employees and with the union, if there is one, to try to reach an agreement that will help all of them get through difficult times.

It may be through work-sharing, a program we have enhanced for Canadians. It may be advising them of potential benefits, including the option for them to continue with long-term work studies so they can upgrade their skills. During this difficult time, the supplemental unemployment benefit program, or SUB as it is known, allows employers to provide top-up payments to claimants who are receiving EI benefits during a period of temporary unemployment, training or illness.

I should explain that one of the main objectives of the SUB program is to stabilize an employer's workforce. The reasoning is that workers will be more inclined to return to work when they are recalled. Moreover, if the claimants do return to their old workplace, they will be avoiding the need to go through the retraining process. So it is a win-win situation for everyone. The program is also designed to mitigate the adverse financial impacts that communities would suffer when massive temporary layoffs occur.

Please be assured that in the event of a temporary layoff, the payments under such plans are not deducted from the claimant's EI benefits nor are the payments during the waiting period. If the layoff is permanent, any employer payments to the claimant to top-up EI benefits would not be considered SUB payments.

The difference is that the workers will not be returning to work for that employer. In such a situation, the employers top-up payments to the EI benefits would be classified as earnings. As such, these earnings would be deducted from the EI benefits that were paid.

I should stress, however, that as a result of the working while on claim pilot project, claimants can earn up to 40% of their EI benefit rate before any deductions are made. This went into force December 2008. I would like to clarify that there is a short time during the mandatory two-week waiting period when there is no allowable amount of earnings. Any earnings during this period are deducted dollar for dollar.

This is the situation in the matter referred to by my colleague in her original question, and is somewhat technical in nature. As members can see, we are doing whatever possible whenever we can to ensure that the claimants do not endure unnecessary hardship. Where possible we try to work with them to make the situation better.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question that I raised in the House on June 3 of this year with respect to employment insurance. It was about the fact that the Catalyst Crofton pulp mill was laying off workers and it was in the context of a lot of other forestry sector workers that were being impacted. Specifically, I indicated that there would be no severance package for Catalyst workers and, instead, the employer was negotiating a plan to top up EI benefits, as had been done in Sudbury. I asked the minister to explain whether these sub-plans would trigger clawbacks. It is ironic that I am now raising this question again in the House.

The answer I got from the minister did not indicate what the government would be doing about the clawbacks for these laid-off workers. Since that time things have not been a lot better in the forestry sector, at least in my riding and other parts of British Columbia.

I recently received a letter from the Catalyst - Timberwest Retired Salaried Employees Association indicating that not only did some of them lose their jobs through layoffs, but some of them ended up taking retirement and now their pensions are under threat. As well, they are not getting full entitlement to employment insurance. In its letter of October 26, the association indicated:

Currently both the underfunding of the pension plan and the non-pension benefits are considered unsecured debt, and has one of the lowest claims on funds.

In a letter of October 28, one of the workers said:

I am a retiree of a forestry company in British Columbia. The quarterly financial and economic reports of our Company indicate that it is in a survival mode in an industry that no one is predicting will turn around soon. I am very concerned that the company will seek CCAA or Bankruptcy protection while my pension fund is between 25% and 30% underfunded.

If this occurs, I anticipate losing 25 to 30% of my pension and all of my medical benefits earned while I was working.

I specifically raised the point around employment insurance, but what is becoming increasingly clear is not only do workers not get adequate employment insurance when they are in a temporary layoff, but when they are in receipt of company pensions that they expected would support them for their retirement years, they are also under threat in terms of the pension.

Given the circumstances that many workers in forestry and manufacturing in this country are facing with continuing lack of productivity in the workplace and the uncertainty surrounding economic recovery, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if the government is entertaining some additional changes to the employment insurance legislation.

We welcome some of the changes that we have seen come forward, certainly, the additional weeks in Bill C-50, and we welcome what is happening with Bill C-56 with respect to employment insurance for self-employed workers in particular categories, but that is simply not enough.

I want to point to some of the things that New Democrats have requested: a reduction in the number of hours that are required to qualify for employment insurance; an increase in the number of weeks; some standardization across this country in the number of weeks to qualify; and an increase in the benefit rate. We know that for many workers the current benefit rate simply does not reflect the cost of living and the reality in many people's communities.

When it comes to the unemployment rate, I have mentioned a number of times in this House that we have had no movement from the government to change it, but the differential rates in calculating benefit rates simply disadvantage communities like mine.

Is the government entertaining future changes to the Employment Insurance Act that would reflect the needs in our communities?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have had the opportunity to listen to my colleague's intervention in this debate on Bill C-56 around special EI benefits for the self-employed. One of the things that I found most interesting about her speech was her comments about how this legislation particularly affects women.

We know that women are heavily represented among Canada's 2.6 million self-employed citizens, and that the benefits that are offered by this legislation are often of particular interest to women, certainly the ones regarding maternity benefits and compassionate care benefits. Although we would hope that everybody would share those kinds of responsibilities, we know that women often bear the burden of those kinds of familial responsibilities.

This legislation will directly address the concerns of many self-employed women in Canada and I wonder if she might just expand on that point a little in response to this question. How will this legislation particularly affect Canadian women?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I waited patiently to participate in this debate on Bill C-56 at second reading. I had, in my mind, planned to talk about certain things, but following the debate, I am going to start off by going in a different direction and then I hopefully will have enough time to make the points I wanted to make about the merits or the demerits of the bill.

We are elected to come to this House with the intent of trying to bring forth legislation. Ideas and suggestions are tabled here and in committee to improve the lives of our people in good times and in difficult times. Our country today is going through some difficult times. There is high unemployment, and the economy is hitting rock bottom.

We eliminated the $42 billion deficit. We provided $100 billion in tax relief, the highest in Canadian history. Unemployment went from 11.3% or 11.4% in 1993 to 6.1% or 6.2% when we left government in 2006. People were working. There was confidence in the nation.

I want to go back to a couple of questions that were asked of the previous speaker, who is from the Conservative Party, the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park. He was asked one question by two members of the Liberal team: first by our whip, the member for Cape Breton—Canso; and the same question again by the member for Mississauga South.

One might ask why two Liberal members would ask the same question.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56 is great news for self-employed workers. It was utterly unfair that, in the past, only those who worked for other people's organizations have been able to collect employment insurance and parental benefits, while putting in an equal amount of work and paying taxes.

It is vitally important that all Canadians are able to find a balance between work and family. Extending maternity, parental, and compassionate care benefits to self-employed Canadians will mean that they will be better able to care for their families.

Perhaps the member could comment on how self-employed workers across this country would be allowed access to these benefits just like other Canadians.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the brief question from my hon. colleague this week in honour of the tributes that we are about to hear.

Today we began and hopefully will conclude the second reading stage of C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act. That bill is receiving rave reviews all across the land and it is my hope that it will move very expeditiously through the House.

On Tuesday, we sent another employment insurance act to the Senate, Bill C-50. My understanding is that it has completed third reading over in the other place and we hope that will receive royal assent today.

Following Bill C-56, it is my intention to continue the debate at third reading of C-27, the anti-spam bill, which will be followed by Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, which is at second reading.

Bill C-56 will continue tomorrow if not completed today. Backup bills for Friday are Bill C-51, the Economic Recovery Act, which was reported back from committee this week, followed by any bills not completed from today.

When the House returns from our constituency Remembrance Day week, the schedule of bills will include Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia, and bills not concluded from this week. We will give consideration to any bills reported back from committee or new bills yet to be introduced.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister needs to bear in mind that Bill C-56 does not take into account the fact that self-employed workers in Quebec already have access to maternity and parental benefits, for which they pay $0.86 per $100.

Does the minister realize that, by charging an extra $1.36, he is making self-employed workers in Quebec pay for those in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue says that the contributions the government wants to collect from self-employed workers in Quebec reflect the cost of the new benefits to which they would be entitled under Bill C-56. That is just not true. Sickness and compassionate care benefits constitute less than 8% of employment insurance pay-outs. The government should therefore collect just $0.32 per $100, not $1.36.

Does the minister acknowledge that the contribution rate is too high compared to the real cost of the new benefits for self-employed Quebec workers?

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on a bill that provides improvements to the employment insurance program which would, if passed into law, set up a system to allow self-employed Canadians to collect EI special benefits for the very first time. This will mean that our self-employed Canadians and their families would have access to the same treatment as most working Canadians for major events, such as the arrival of a new baby, a serious illness, or the need to care for a gravely ill relative.

I am particularly pleased to be able to contribute to this discussion since it provides me with an opportunity to speak on behalf of this group of hard-working Canadians who, through their ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirt, have done so much to spur economic growth, inject new ideas, and foster greater innovation. There are some 2.6 million self-employed people in our country. They represent just over 15% of our workforce. This means we are talking about a large number of people who make a significant contribution to our economic well-being.

Self-employed Canadians are very often the people driving innovation in our economy. These are the people who harness creativity, courage and capital to build better lives. They themselves are creatively-driven, resourceful and entrepreneurial. They create businesses. They create new products. They innovate. They create jobs. They create wealth. They build our homes and they help us buy and sell our homes. They help us, when we need it, through the legal system. They fix our pipes and our wires. And they employ people who do all these things, too. They provide services that we need. We need them. They are farmers and realtors, carpenters and electricians, doctors and business owners, and so much more.

They build stronger communities and, in turn, a stronger country. Our self-employed entrepreneurs are the forefront of our economic vitality. We want to ensure our entrepreneurs can have strong, healthy businesses because stronger entrepreneurship means a stronger Canada.

We need their skills, we need their experience, and we need their energy and creativity to meet the challenges to come. They deserve fair treatment. I think this is most important. Self-employed Canadians deserve fair treatment. If the federal government is going to offer a framework and a structure for providing certain benefits to working Canadians, then all working Canadians should have the opportunity take part in that structure and to have access to those benefits.

That is why our Conservative government believes that these entrepreneurs deserve to have access to a system that would provide them with the same EI special benefits that other working Canadians can have access to. That is simply the fair and right thing to do.

Bill C-56 seeks to address the gap by giving such entrepreneurs access to EI special benefits for the very first time and, on a voluntary basis; a move that would improve their financial security and acknowledge the important role that they play in our economy.

When it comes to this action by our government, we listened to Canadians. We made a promise to them, and now we are delivering on that promise over and above what we said we would do.

Let me tell members about it. A year ago, our Prime Minister promised Canadians action. He said:

Self-employed Canadians, and those who one day hope to be, shouldn’t have to choose between starting a family and starting a business because of government policy. It should allow them to pursue their dreams, both as entrepreneurs and as parents...a re-elected Conservative Government will permit self-employed Canadians to join the EI system to access maternity and parental Employment Insurance benefits.

With this bill, not only are we keeping that promise and delivering access to that leave but we are also giving the self-employed access to sickness and to compassionate care that those other Canadians also have access to with EI special benefits. We are exceeding our promise made to Canadians. We are giving self-employed Canadians the same access as other Canadians. We are making this access voluntary because, of course, these benefits would require premium contributions, and we are ensuring that our federal government treats all working Canadians fairly in this manner.

We listened to Canadians. It is not surprising that many self-employed Canadians have been calling on the federal government to open up EI special benefits to them. They want fair treatment from their government and we agree. We do not want them to have to scale back or stop work when faced with joyous events like the birth or adoption of a child, or a difficult personal family challenge such as a serious illness or family crisis.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-56 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I am glad to participate in the debate on an issue as important as employment insurance.

Earlier, I listened to the Conservative member list all of the things her government could have done for women. Opinion polls—one came out just today—show that the Conservative Party has far more male supporters than female, and for good reason. The Conservatives simply do not have the will to systematically address women's problems.

On the contrary, the Bloc Québécois does. That is why, day after day in the House, the Bloc Québécois speaks out vigorously on employment insurance issues, particularly since the economic crisis began. The crisis is affecting society's weakest and most vulnerable, those in unstable employment situations. Employees themselves are not unstable, but the jobs being offered by employers are.

The Conservatives' proposed reforms are nothing more than partisan tactics. Consider the previous bill on employment insurance reform—not Bill C-56, which is before us now, but the previous one introduced by the Conservatives—the one they say will help long-tenured workers. So much can be learned from a closer look at this bill that was passed by the House but opposed by the Bloc Québécois. The help for long-tenured workers bill creates two classes of workers. Their definition of a long-tenured worker is a person who has worked for the same company for at least five years and who has not collected more than 35 weeks of employment insurance in the past five years.

We all know that those employed in the tourism, agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors, primarily in Quebec, who have worked for a long time—for 15, 20, 25, and 30 years—will not have access to these benefits. They are offered seasonal employment that is often unstable, meaning that it is not permanent. It is in some ways permanent because people return to the same job year after year. However, there are always times when people have to be laid off for all kinds of reasons—in tourism because there are no tourists in a given period of the year, in fisheries because of quotas, in agriculture because the weather makes it impossible to work all 12 months of the year, in forestry because of the weather also. This sector has been in crisis for the past five years and it all started with tariffs. The softwood lumber agreement was signed long before this recession began.

The Conservative Party believes that some permanent employees who are long-tenured workers in an industry do not deserve to have their benefits extended by 5 to 20 weeks.

It is difficult to listen to and follow the Conservatives. They are again boasting about helping women and the most disadvantaged with Bill C-56. We see that this is not the case.

The Bloc Québécois will vote for the bill at this stage to send it to committee and to explore these issues. We know how committees work. Witnesses are invited, target groups consisting of those who should benefit and those who believe they could benefit are heard.

Then we amend and improve the legislation. We will see what happens. However, the bill that is now before us, and which will be passed by the House, may be quite different when it comes back from the committee. We have to care about the most vulnerable in our society, but also about self-employed persons. In fact, ensuring that self-employed persons can benefit from the employment insurance program has always been a clearly stated objective of the Bloc Québécois.

As I said, the Conservatives are manipulating public opinion. It is quite something to hear the media convey the messages of Conservative ministers and members. The Conservatives give the impression that they are helping all self-employed persons, as if these people could contribute to the EI fund and be entitled—if they find themselves out of work for a period of time—to EI benefits. That is not the case. This bill is about a voluntary employment insurance program that will cover special benefits. It is important to make this distinction.

When we talk about special benefits, it is important to understand that self-employed persons will receive maternity benefits for 15 weeks, parental or adoption benefits for a maximum of 35 weeks, sickness benefits for a maximum of 15 weeks, and compassionate care benefits for a maximum of six weeks. Since participation will be on a voluntary basis, the program is not the same across Canada. Of course, in Quebec, some of these benefits—in fact the majority of them—are already included in the program administered by the Quebec government. However, this is not an employment insurance program for self-employed persons.

The Conservatives should stop manipulating and brainwashing the public by saying that they will allow self-employed persons to receive EI benefits. A self-employed person who loses a contract will not be entitled to employment insurance. That is not what the bill now before us provides.

I am repeating it again, because this is important. The Conservatives have become experts in manipulating public opinion. They influence public opinion with a statement from the minister or from members, saying that they are implementing an employment insurance program for self-employed persons. That is not the case. This is an employment insurance program that includes special benefits for those self-employed persons who decide to participate in it. Again, the special benefits to which self-employed persons would be entitled are as follows: maternity benefits for a maximum of 15 weeks, parental or adoption benefits for a maximum of 35 weeks, sickness benefits for a maximum of 15 weeks, and compassionate care benefits for a maximum of six weeks.

Again, there is nothing here for a self-employed person who loses a contract and who, after contributing to the plan, wants to collect EI benefits like any other worker who pays premiums. This person would only be entitled to special benefits, under specific circumstances, but definitely not when losing a contract or a portion of his income.

Now that I have cleared that up, it should be evident that this has always been a goal of the Bloc Québécois. What the Bloc would like is to improve this measure in committee, to ensure that we have a real employment insurance program to help self-employed workers who have been hit by the economic crisis like all other entrepreneurs, businesses and employees.

Contract work has become quite popular. To avoid paying different types of benefits or packages, business people are deciding to hire contract workers to cover a portion of their operations. A good number of self-employed workers are on contract. This is very common in the IT world. My son works in multimedia.

In this field, I would say that nearly 100% of employees are on contract. That does not mean that they are short of work, but during an economic crisis, there is less work. So a number of contract workers are currently out of work, and do not have access to EI because they have not paid premiums.

So we must be cautious about what the Conservatives are proposing, as they often manipulate public opinion for purely partisan reasons—I have no problem saying that—and use the media to serve their party's purposes. Sometimes the media are very sympathetic. They know that the Conservatives are using them and they want to do their work well. I will not say the dirty work that the Conservatives want done, although that could be the case. However it should not be surprising that the objective of the Bloc Québécois, the only party that defends the interests of Quebeckers in this House every single day, is to get the bills improved in committee and to provide a real employment insurance program for self-employed workers.

We also have to put what will be paid in perspective because participation to the program will be voluntary. The bill allows self-employed persons to have access on a voluntary basis to special employment insurance benefits, as I explained earlier. They will pay their premiums to the scheme via their tax returns. They will have to make a voluntary declaration in their tax returns or another return stating their income, and they will have to pay a premium per thousand dollars of income.

Obviously some conditions will apply. They will have to earn a minimum of $6,000 in the calendar year preceding their claim in order to be entitled to 50% of their income, as is the case for special and regular benefits. They will have to enrol in their 2009 tax return. So that will be in their next tax return, that they will have to file in February, March or April 2010 for the 2009 taxation year. They will have to enrol in their 2009 tax return to be able to claim benefits in 2010, a year of paying premiums before being entitled to benefits.

In the present situation, that measure could be in place by 2010, based on tax returns for the preceding year. So we are allowing workers to enrol as of now. They enrol and when they prepare their tax return, they pay their full premium for 2009, and this enables them to claim special employment insurance benefits starting in 2010.

We have to question this procedure because the employment insurance fund has forecast a $7 billion deficit in 2010. Will the purpose of the special premium to be paid by self-employed persons for 2009, which will be payable as soon as January, February, March or April 2010, be to top up the employment insurance fund? Obviously we will have to ask ourselves that question.

Workers who want to claim special benefits will have to pay mandatory, permanent premiums to the plan once they declare themselves as self-employed persons. This will be done on a voluntary basis, but those who begin paying premiums can decide to opt out as long as they have never claimed benefits. That is a choice they could make. However, once someone has claimed benefits under the program, they will have to continue to contribute to the scheme forever, or as long as they are self-employed.

The Conservatives tell us that self-employed persons will pay only the employee premium since they do not have access to regular benefits. That will mean that the premium required will be lower than what is required of regular employees who work for companies.

On the question of special benefits, there is the bill that self-employed persons are to have to pay and what is paid out of the employment insurance scheme in special benefits at present. There is already a plan in effect in Quebec, in fact. Special benefits represent about a quarter of total benefits paid by the plan, while the Conservative Party is seeking $1.73 per $100 from self-employed persons. In Quebec, those workers will pay $1.36 per $100 to be entitled to the two least costly components of the bill. They are already entitled to the other measures through the premiums they pay in Quebec.

Obviously there will be a whole debate in committee about the portion paid by self-employed persons in Quebec. According to the documents provided to the press by the government, self-employed persons who live in Quebec will continue to receive maternity and parental benefits under the government of Quebec’s parental insurance plan.

In addition, these workers will now be eligible for sickness and compassionate care benefits through the federal government's employment insurance scheme. If they decide to take part in the scheme, they will have to pay the same employment insurance premiums as other workers in Quebec, where the rates have already been adjusted to take into account the provincial maternity and parental benefits program.

Bill C-56 will only partially apply to self-employed workers in Quebec, since they are already covered by the Quebec parental insurance plan when it comes to maternity, parental and adoption benefits. Therefore, only the sickness and compassionate care benefits would apply to workers in Quebec.

The EI premium rate for workers in Quebec is $1.36. In Canada, it will be $1.73. The difference between the two rates can be explained by the fact that Quebeckers pay premiums for provincial parental insurance. However, Quebeckers already pay more than the difference between $1.73 and $1.36, which is 37¢, although at this time, they pay just over 80¢ to the Quebec system.

There will be a great deal of discussion and debate over whether this scheme will see Quebeckers paying more than the rest of Canada. People will soon realize that that is the case. The Bloc Québécois' goal will be to ensure that Quebeckers never pay more, that the premiums they currently pay to the Government of Quebec are taken into account, and that the amount of those premiums is in fact deducted from whatever premiums they pay as part of the scheme for the rest of Canada.

In all of the Americas, Quebec is where wealth is the most evenly distributed, and this is what we want as a society. Quebec has created programs that we often pay for ourselves. It serves as an example for the rest of Canada, but we are never compensated as much as the others are compensated. That is one reason why Quebec hopes to one day become sovereign. It is not because we do not like our neighbours; it is simply because we have a different perspective of society. This is confirmed every day.

When it comes to the environment, it is now clear that Canada is an embarrassment to the rest of the world. If Quebec were a country, it would have one of the best track records in terms of fighting climate change. Society makes these choices. Quebec developed hydroelectricity and I am proud to say that our hydro network was developed with no federal contributions whatsoever. Quebeckers chose to develop their hydro network without any help from the federal government. If Quebec were a country, it could take part in the carbon exchange, and Quebec companies that have made an effort to reduce their emissions beyond the Kyoto targets would now be entitled to huge sums of money.

Rivière-du-Loup closed a landfill and built a methane capture system, so it would collect $1 million. However, because Canada decided to go it alone, it has deprived Rivière-du-Loup of that $1 million.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Minister of State (Status of Women)]

Madam Speaker, a year ago the Prime Minister said this:

Self-employed Canadians—and those who one day hope to be—shouldn't have to choose between starting a family and starting a business because of government policy....They should be able to pursue their dreams—both as entrepreneurs and as parents.

At the time, Conservatives promised to extend EI maternity and parental benefits to the self-employed. That was our pledge to all Canadians.

Canadians who pay into the EI system now get not only maternity and parental benefits but also compassionate care benefits and sickness benefits. Right now the field is not fair. Those Canadians get more.

We want to do more, we can and we will do more. We are doing more for self-employed Canadians through Bill C-56. Not only will we make maternity and parental benefits available to them, but also those same compassionate care and sickness benefits that most working Canadians already receive. This is both the fair thing and the right thing to do and it is really that simple.

The same relative assurance and stability that most working Canadians have due to these special benefits should be and now will be accorded to the work and lives of the literally millions of self-employed Canadians across the country.

Our Conservative government knows that families are the foundation of our great country and until the introduction of the bill, there was no choice for them at all. Self-employed Canadians have been on their own since the very beginning.

While we certainly have faith in the abilities and the willingness of these Canadians to create jobs, to create wealth and to save and plan for the contingencies of life, successive Canadian governments have done nothing to make things even just a little bit easier; that is, until now.

Bill C-56 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend to self-employed Canadians similar EI special benefits that employees enjoy on a voluntary basis. These are the benefits that can help them cope with life-changing events and transitions, such as the birth of a child, the adoption of a child, a serious illness or having to care for a family member who is gravely ill.

These benefits have been available in various forms to most working Canadians for a very long time but never to our self-employed. Building this structure to facilitate our self-employed being able to draw on these benefits, if they want to and if they need to, is our government's way of making things a little easier.

There are somewhere around 2.6 million self-employed Canadians in our country. We are talking about over 15% of the workforce. We know that 47% of small business owners are women owned or operated by women. We know that the OECD has cited Canada as having one of the most entrepreneurial women's groups within the OECD developed countries. That is impressive. It is a very large and very important segment of our workforce and an even bigger segment of our entrepreneurial, creative and wealth-producing talent.

They have long asked for this sort of support. Previous governments completely ignored these Canadians and they have for decades. That is stopping right now.

Our government has listened and we have worked hard to create this bill and the structure and now we are delivering results for the self-employed.

In many cases self-employment has meant a new start for people or even a challenge right at the outset of a person's working life. Many of these people are entrepreneurial by nature. They are willing to take risks. They are very creative and they are driven.

I have been a small business owner myself, having been raised in a small business family and coming from a long line of small businesses, namely from a jewellery business, to a local garage owner, to a motel, to a grocery store and to a furniture business. That is the family business I was raised in for 40 years. I often jokingly say that I started in the dusting department and quickly rose and graduated to marketing, sales, finance and so on. A small business person is all of the above.

Many members here, past and present, and I am sure many in the future, too, have run small businesses and perhaps will run a business of their own when they leave this place.

Self-employed people set out to market their skills and their knowledge and the economy is much better for their resourcefulness and determination. In this place we often speak of creating the best trained, most skilled, most flexible workforce in the world. Often it is those very attributes that define the successful self-employed Canadian. They market themselves on their strengths, on their training and their skills and they are certainly among the most flexible people in the labour market.

Self-employed individuals must be ready to take on a very wide range of challenges. Many self-employed individuals find great satisfaction in being their own boss. They enjoy being called in to fix a particular problem for which their background and training make them qualified.

However, as many self-employed people know, and would remind us, this kind of career path can be something like walking a tightrope at times and there is no safety net of benefits to tide them over should difficult times come upon them.

Life transition events can be extremely challenging for those who are self-employed. What do they do when they are sick? Who do they turn to? What do they do when a close family member has been diagnosed with a terminal illness? How do they balance their work and their family responsibilities?

An employee who pays EI premiums has access to EI maternal or paternal benefits when needed. Up to now, self-employed Canadians had no such option. Our Conservative government cares a great deal about the family. We are helping Canadians balance their work and their family responsibilities.

When the Prime Minister first assumed office in 2006, he made child care a priority for our government. Choice and opportunity would be the driving forces behind our government's policies when it came to Canadian families.

When our Conservative government sees such a large number of Canadian workers who might want to raise a family but do not have the kind of supports that they need, especially when those supports are available to other Canadians, we want to ensure we can help them. This situation is particularly acute when we consider how many self-employed Canadians are women.

As Minister of State for the Status of Women, I am proud of what the bill would accomplish for women. This, however, is nothing new because in every action that we have taken as a government, we have advanced the economic, social, cultural and democratic participation of women in this country.

The guiding principle for actions we have taken with respect to women has always been ensuring that the benefits go directly to women and their families. That was why our government chose to provide child care benefits directly to parents. That is why we created two new funding programs at Status of Women Canada: the community grants fund and the partnership fund. We increased the budget for both of these programs so women's organizations across the country could get the assistance they needed in order to help within their own specific communities.

Funding for Status of Women Canada right now is at the highest level in Canada's history. We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of women's organizations across the country that are receiving funding, in fact, a 69% increase. Forty-two per cent of them are receiving money for the first time.

To date, 100,000 women have benefited from these projects, which focus on economic security, ending violence against women and leadership and democratic participation. However, the larger portion is focused on economic security. This includes talking about financial literacy or helping a new businesswoman understand what is required in terms of accounting measures for small business, or, for new immigrants, even knowing where to go to begin that new business.

Over the summer, I had an opportunity to meet with women across the country from all walks of life. I was proud and impressed to hear from so many Canadian women on how they had accomplished so much as small business women and what they were looking for from this government.

I heard time and again that they wanted us to fulfill the promise and the pledge that we made to provide maternal and paternal benefits to the self-employed, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are doing one better. We are also going to provide compassionate benefits, which are important.

Working with businesswomen across the country, being a former owner of a small business and having a Masters in business, I can tell the House that small businesswomen across the country are pleased with this government. They are looking to all members in the House to support the bill.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Simcoe—Grey.

It is a pleasure for me to rise today in defence of Bill C-56, Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, which provides self-employed persons in Canada with special employment insurance benefits.

Entrepreneurship is vital to a vibrant economy and creates jobs in Canadian communities. Last year, there were 2.6 million self-employed in Canada, accounting for 15.4% of the active population. Nearly one-third of self-employed women are in their reproductive years.

Self-employed persons have little or no income protection during major events in their lives, such as the birth or adoption of a child, sickness, or the provision of care to gravely ill relatives. Our government wants the self-employed to have special employment insurance benefits comparable to those available to salaried employees.

Expanding access to these benefits is both fair and responsible. Let me explain these special benefits, which provide Canadians with income support during major events in their lives, such as the birth or adoption of a child or the need to care for a terminally ill relative.

Anyone would find that major events like these affect a person’s ability to work. Our Conservative government is very sensitive to the difficulties facing all working Canadians, who have to deal with the pressures of both their occupational and family responsibilities. All indications are that these benefits are very important to the self-employed.

A recent survey showed that self-employed persons are very interested in getting some help in dealing with these sorts of events in their lives. Our government is responding to their long-standing desire to be able to draw on this kind of support. We are proposing that the special employment insurance benefits for the self-employed should be similar to those available to employees under the current employment insurance program. The following would therefore be similar: benefit periods, income-replacement rates, maximum insurable earnings, the treatment of earnings, and the waiting period.

Adjustments will be made, of course, on the basis of the individual situations of the self-employed. For example, participation in the program will be voluntary and self-employed persons must contribute on an ongoing basis for at least a year in order to qualify for benefits. They can withdraw from the program at the end of any financial year, provided they have never received benefits. The contribution rate is the same as for employees, but they will not be required to pay the employer’s share of the employment insurance contribution because they will not be eligible for regular employment insurance benefits. The self-employed will qualify for benefits if their income is interrupted as a result of the birth or adoption of a child, a sickness, or the need to care for a gravely ill relative.

To be eligible for those benefits, they must earn at least $6,000 in the calendar year as a self-employed worker. As many hon. members know, the Government of Quebec already pays maternity and parental benefits to self-employed workers through Quebec's parental insurance program.

I would point out that with this bill, self-employed workers who live in Quebec will continue receiving maternity and parental benefits from Quebec's parental insurance program established by the Government of Quebec for everyone who lives in Quebec. However, they could also be eligible for the sickness and compassionate care benefits offered by the federal government through the employment insurance system. Since the province is already paying for parental and maternity benefits, the premiums paid by self-employed workers in Quebec will be lowered. Those are the main points of this bill.

Increasing access to these benefits is a fair, equitable, family-based policy that will greatly benefit families across Canada. Our Conservative government knows that family is the foundation of our beautiful country.

We believe that self-employed workers in Canada should not have to chose between their families and their professional responsibilities. I would like to look at Bill C-56 in a broader context.

When the Prime Minister came to power in 2006, he made child care one of this government's top priorities. In fact, this summer marked the third anniversary of the universal child care benefit. Since July 2006, we have been giving parents $100 a month for each child under the age of six. This means a total of $1,200 a year for each child under the age of six, which helps parents choose the solution that best meets their family's needs.

Since last February's budget, we have made major new investments in families. We have increased the income thresholds at which the national child benefit and the Canada child tax benefit are phased out. We have created $580 billion in refundable tax credits through the working income tax benefit. We have created $1 billion in decent, affordable housing. Over five years, we will deliver $20 billion in personal income tax relief. In short, support for Canadian families is one of this government's top priorities. That is the backdrop against which we are introducing Bill C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act.

These special benefits will not only help many people take responsibility for their family and loved ones, they will also give them peace of mind and greater financial security. As hon. members are well aware, the government acted quickly to help Canadians get through these tough economic times. That is another one of our priorities.

Thanks to Canada's economic action plan, we quickly made improvements to the employment insurance system by increasing the benefit period, making service more efficient, providing support for training and extending the work sharing program. The measures in Canada's economic action plan reflect this government's commitment to help all Canadians through this economic crisis.

This government has also expanded eligibility for compassionate care benefits and created the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board to improve the governance and management of the EI account. More recently, the government has passed legislation to pay regular EI benefits to long-tenured workers who lose their jobs. These are people who have paid into EI for years but seldom received benefits and who now need a hand.

Our Conservative government is sensitive to Canadians' needs. This bill reflects our commitment to pay parental and maternity benefits to self-employed workers.

I encourage all members to join me in voting for this bill.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

These amendments will mainly affect self-employed Canadians who have been lobbying for changes to employment insurance legislation for a number of years.

In principle, Liberals will support this legislation because the intent is good. We would like to see the bill sent to committee for an in-depth study.

What my colleagues and I on this side of the House find surprising is the fact that the government has drafted such an important bill without even defining the expression “self-employed worker”.

As a legislative body, it is our responsibility as parliamentarians, when laws are written and codified, to provide advice to whose who will apply the law in the legislative framework.

At the outset of any piece of legislation, it is important to say what we mean by the terms. Who are these independent workers? When we talk about the self-employed, who are we speaking about? Are we speaking about people who work as individual consultants, or those who work within a consulting firm where there are several independent consultants but only share office space, phone lines, a receptionist and other administrative services? Are we speaking about contractors, small and medium-sized entrepreneurs who work in teams yet have no financial responsibility towards each other?

Surely the definitions of the people affected by any legislation, and particularly such a major piece as we are discussing today, should be included and clarified in the actual legislation and not left to regulations. These regulations, which come after the legislation has passed this House and the other House, can be amended by order in council, at the government's will, without any debate in Parliament. It is therefore imperative that there be substantial amendments to the bill as it stands today, and the very first one that I would suggest to this House would be a definition of who are the people who will be affected by this bill.

Who are these self-employed workers? What we do know, based on socio-demographic characteristics, is that the number of self-employed workers has increased.

Throughout Canada, one worker in six is now self-employed.

According to the surveys, self-employment has grown more quickly than employment in general in the past 25 years.

According to Statistics Canada, between August 2008 and August 2009, self-employment rose by 3.5% on average. That is in one year. That is over 92,000 more people.

Concurrently, the paid work force has decreased by 2.7%.

There are now more than 2.7 million self-employed people in Canada, as compared to 2.5 million in 2005. This is despite the downturn in the economy. It is obvious that this bill comes at a very important time for these 2.7 million self-employed people in Canada, but we have to know, within this 2.7 million, who is going to be affected by the bill.

In the case of women who are self-employed, 35.9% have their spouses as business partners compared to 28% for men. That means that both workers in the family are self-employed.

We also know that around 88% of the self-employed work full time.

We know that people have chosen self-employment either after retirement, or in many cases, when they have grown frustrated with their inability to find full-time work that suits their qualifications and skills.

We also know that stress in the workplace, especially within the public service sector, has forced people to choose the uncertainties of self-employment, and I could talk about the uncertainties of self-employment, because for 10 years I was self-employed. It was really an up-and-down ladder. There were months when nothing would come in and I would do no work, and there were months when I would be trying to do two or three things at the same time. One could never tell a few months ahead whether there was going to be any money coming into the house.

We know that among the self-employed, 17% are newcomers to Canada. We know one of the reasons is that they have degrees they have earned outside Canada and they are not able to have a comparable degree here in Canada. These people have no choice but to become self-employed, because barriers to employment are more prevalent.

The opposition has been waiting a long time to discuss changes to employment insurance. We spent the summer trying to work with the Conservative government.

In the end, we have a bill that has no flexibility within the employment insurance program, does not take into consideration the variety of legislation in the provinces and territories, and does not provide a clear definition of self-employment. If there is one, it is not good enough.

This is as a result of a summer of discontent, of a lack of goodwill on the part of the government to be open and willing to discuss public policies that matter to Canadians.

While we are pleased that many of those self-employed women, and I am only speaking of women here, will now be able to access maternity benefits and parental, sick and even compassionate benefits, what calculations did the government use to assure Canadians that the EI fund will be able to withstand the added cost? If it has done calculations, these calculations are still unknown to Canadians and are definitely unknown to parliamentarians.

What models did the government look at before coming up with this framework? Obviously not very many.

For instance, had the government made an effort to look at what the provinces and territories had in terms of programs, it would have realized that the Quebec model is a very good one, and it would be important that it be used as a basis for developing a fairer and more equitable system for the self-employed. I would like to take a moment to outline this Quebec model.

The Government of Quebec currently provides parental and maternity benefits to the self-employed, but it uses a different model. All Quebeckers who are in business for themselves have to pay, out of their income, premiums to Quebec's parental insurance plan, QPIP. Self-employed workers with at least $2,000 in insurable income may qualify for benefits under this plan and receive up to 70% of their income in QPIP benefits. That is a more generous plan than the one proposed in the bill before us today.

As long as the QPIP is in place, the new federal maternity and parental benefits plan will not apply to Quebec, but the self-employed in Quebec will be able to contribute to the plan for the caregiver and sick leave benefits that are not currently provided under QPIP. Consequently, in Quebec, the self-employed will pay premiums corresponding to 37% less of their income. It goes without saying that this sounds like a more equitable arrangement than the one proposed in this federal bill, which corresponds to 55% of an individual's average income.

Another questionable aspect of what is being presented in this legislation is the threshold of $6,000 in pre-tax earnings before the self-employed can qualify.

Again, what calculations did the government use to come up with this figure?

This is one aspect that we, on this side, would like to see discussed in detail at committee in the interest of those who will be affected by the proposed regulations.

At committee, we would also like the hear the Government of Quebec on the best practices and lessons learned in providing services to the self-employed in that province.

While we are pleased that many of those self-employed women will now be able to access maternity benefits, we still ask, again, what calculations has the Conservative government made? How has it come to these calculations? Will it make them public to members of Parliament, as well as to the Canadian public?

The labour force must become flexible. Working full time for a single employer is no longer the norm. We must therefore have a system that meets and responds to the needs of this new labour force, one that is flexible, mobile and even seasonal.

This is what fairness and equity is all about in the 21st century.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Jonquière—Alma will probably admit that he made an error in his presentation earlier. The number of weeks of sickness benefits is 15, not 25. I do not believe that the bill says that it will increase. He said 25, but I think that that is a mistake, because the bill provides for 15 weeks of sickness benefits. That said, I do not believe he deliberately misstated the number.

I would like to talk about my colleague's presentation, in which he defended Bill C-50 instead of Bill C-56. I understand that he is embarrassed at having supported that bill and that he felt obliged to defend it because it is indefensible.

My colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord pointed out that in Quebec, both the major unions and the groups that represent the unemployed are unanimously opposed to the bill. I would add that even in the auto sector, the Canadian Auto Workers have acknowledged that it would help them so little for the price that they would prefer not to have it.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. I want to say right off that I agree with the Bloc member's remarks that the major parties here should work together to produce EI bills and EI and other reforms.

I could say—I do not know if the hon. member from the Bloc will agree with me—that when it comes to studying, we have been there and done that. Employment Insurance has been studied from top to bottom. Twenty-eight recommendations have been tabled in the House. Most of the political parties have introduced the 28 recommendations that should have led to the major reform of EI. I think we can agree that recommendations have been made and that a lot of work has been done.

When we invite witnesses to appear before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to speak about EI, we know what people need.

Earlier, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour tried to take some credit. It is not that I want to pick on this Liberal member. Let us consider their beloved pink book and the changes that should have occurred. Let us consider how much these people have been left out. I have to repeat what I have said on this. Although I produced a report in 1999, which the member more or less called an antique, the problem remains. If it is an antique, the Liberals were in office from 1999 to 2005 and did nothing for self employed workers, sometimes called independent workers.

This bill is a good start. I asked the minister why the government did not make self-employed workers eligible for EI when they were unemployed. She said that the formula was too complex, for example, if they were taking a vacation. I think that if they took a vacation—she seems to have said that these people work without a break—if there is no money coming in, it means they are not working. That is the test of Bill C-56. That is how it is calculated.

There will, however, be 2.6 billion Canadians who could access the self-employed workers program if they wish. The benefits of the bill are 15 weeks of maternity benefits, 35 weeks of parental and adoption leave and six weeks of compassionate care leave.

As I said in 1999—it is not in the red or pink or other book, but it is still true—there is the human side of EI. At the time, people were saying:

A plan ill suited to the new labour market. The EI program, as it exists, does not take market realities into account. More workers are described as "self-employed", which is not quite the case. A growing number of businesses are laying off people and then hiring them as self-employed workers in order to avoid having to contribute to EI or to a pension plan. Self-employed workers are not entitled to EI and are practically without social protection. We must take a closer look at what is really happening on the new labour market and explore ways to help so-called self-employed workers contribute to and benefit from the system.

What were people saying in 1999 and what are they saying today, 10 years later? Many self-employed workers used to work for an employer. When their services were no longer needed, they went home. And then the same employer would call them back. These workers were mainly women doing office work.

The employer would ask them to do some work for him, to write a letter, for example. They had their own computer at home. They would write the letter and send it to the employer, who would use it. He would make these people work as self-employed workers and they were totally excluded from any program that could have helped them, like health insurance or employment insurance. They could not contribute.

How many people with complaints about that have I met in my riding? For example, a hairdresser who had her own salon told me that she would like to start a family and have children, but she could not afford to because if she stopped working, she would have no income.

Bill C-56 would give that hairdresser the chance to benefit from maternity leave, parental leave and sick leave. And she is not the only one because, with this bill, even farmers will enjoy those benefits. Any person holding more than 40% of the shares in a company will be recognized as self-employed. That is why I am proud to see that this bill is going in the right direction. However, there are still improvements to be made.

The minister says that she wants equal treatment for workers. What is troublesome is that, according to the numbers, 2.6 million Canadian men and women are self-employed and have no protection whatsoever. How can the minister say that she wants equal treatment for workers when the self-employed cannot avail themselves of employment insurance, for example?

I have talked to other people who are self-employed, massage therapists, for example, and as I said, farmers. They get up in the morning and do their work. They wonder why they are not protected for when they do not have work, especially those who work in offices, most of whom are women.

When I made my trip across the country in 1999, the self-employed said it very, very clearly. I presented a document to the House of Commons, to the government. On page 12 of the document is the heading, “Lack of response to the new labour market”. In the new labour market, many people have become self-employed. Many people who had worked for a company or a business but had been laid off started their own business.

This morning the minister herself said that this is a new lifestyle that we will see more and more. There are 2.6 million self-employed people in our country. If there are 2.6 million self-employed people in our country, we have to give them more than the sick leave, paternal leave, maternity leave and care leave. We have to go further than that. What if they lose their job or do not have any work? The minister this morning asked how we would know whether a person was working or not working. If people do not report any earnings, that means they are not working. If a hairdresser does not have earnings for two months, then that person is not working. I think there are ways to do it.

I will vote for the bill to go to committee. I would be very interested to work with other members to make it a better bill. That is what this is all about. The bill is presented in the House and when it goes to committee, we have the opportunity to make amendments to it. I hope that we will work together so that self-employed people will have be treated equally with respect to employment insurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-56, which will for the first time give a certain number of rights to self-employed workers, it is rather appalling that the major national parties are taking the credit for doing nothing to improve the living conditions of those who lose their jobs. It is quite surprising. They stated that they brought forward many proposals but at no time did they get together to finally take the next step of reforming the employment insurance program in order to restore its original purpose—to support and protect workers who have the misfortune of losing their jobs.

I am also surprised that two of my colleagues raised the fact that we could rejoice because of this bill and begin celebrating Christmas. I do not think there is anything to celebrate. There is no cause to celebrate, especially not for the unemployed because they will not be in a festive mood. In fact, I doubt that most of them have anything to be happy about, even at Christmas, because a large number—the majority of those who lost their jobs—will find themselves without income or with the small income provided by their provinces in the form of social assistance, the support of last resort.

Bill C-56 is not what is going to improve the situation. The only merit to be found in that bill is that for the first time it recognizes the rights of self-employed persons. Even though they do not have many rights, it is a first step, I would say, toward improving a social safety net that is perhaps, however, not identical to what other workers have. It needs to be improved, but it is a step in the right direction.

Members have been using the term “travailleurs autonomes” for self-employed persons. The term used in the bill is “travailleurs indépendants”. That is fine with me. We like it a lot, even though it also refers to workers who are federalists. But if we talk about workers who are “indépendants”, that is fine with me. The more there are, the better, not independent workers but people who are going to work for Quebec’s independence.

In recent years, the Bloc has never stopped calling for coverage for self-employed persons. In the last two economic recovery plans we presented, there were very specific measures for self-employed persons, particularly in the last one we presented in this House.

Bill C-56 refers to four kinds of special leave, but two of them will not apply in Quebec. Why? Because since March 1, 2005, there has been an agreement between Quebec and the federal government to transfer responsibility for maternity and parental leave to Quebec, along with part of the deduction for premiums that was to be allocated to support that program. Right now in Quebec, about 500,000 workers are considered to be self-employed.

Bill C-56 also provides for access to the program to be voluntary. We shall see whether making it voluntary, with the criteria being proposed at present, does not create problems in terms of genuine protection for those people.

We support the bill in principle for the reasons I stated at the outset. For the first time, it grants rights under the employment insurance scheme for self-employed persons, and in that respect we welcome this initiative.

We very much hope that the government, that is, the Conservative Party, will be open and work with us on making amendments to its own bill.

What also causes problems for us, and we will submit this for debate, is that we were hoping that when self-employed persons were given rights it would also mean granting employment insurance benefits from the point when they found themselves jobless.

An individual who owns a small business or is self-employed may sometimes in fact find themselves with no contract or no retainer so they can continue to work. As a result, they are left without an income. II think this is an aspect that should be debated. Certainly we are going to work to have this bill passed on second reading to make sure it can be debated in committee.

There is also another problem, however. In my view, it is a major problem. That is the entire question of how premium rates are set, which seems to us to be somewhat random. As well, the projected premiums for the benefits that will be made available to these people seems to be much too high.

Remember that the bill is intended to provide self-employed persons with benefits during special leave. There are four kinds of special leave. There are maternity benefits for up to 15 weeks and parental or adoption benefits for up to 35 weeks. We agree on that. The maternity and parental leave benefits are the parts that cost the most, 75% of the total estimated cost. This is a responsibility that Quebec already assumes.

That means the bill does not apply to self-employed persons in Quebec. Only some of its provisions apply. The two provisions that apply are sickness benefits, for up to 15 weeks, and compassionate care benefits for up to six weeks. However, these two benefits account for only 25% of the total cost of Bill C-56.

The members can probably see where I am coming from. Self-employed persons in the rest of Canada will pay their full contribution to be entitled to these four benefits, while in Quebec, they will pay their full contribution to be entitled to only two benefits, representing 25% of the total cost.

Self-employed persons in Quebec are going to contribute as if they were receiving all four of the special kinds of leave I listed, in addition to the benefits they get if they lose their job. There is something very questionable about this.

The answer we are given is that as self-employed persons, they are assumed to be employers as well and the employer’s share will offset their contributions.

Even if we follow this reasoning and add the employer’s share, the final amount is still much less. This even implies that the transfers currently provided to Quebec for maternity leave and parental leave are far too low. That is another debate, though, that we will take up in another forum.

For the time being, let us just say that the cost of this for self-employed persons in Quebec is clearly too high. Some very specific work needs to be done to give us the information we requested. I hope we will get it. We had a briefing two evenings ago with some senior officials. We asked for the actual cost of each of the measures in the bill: the actual cost of the maternity leave and parental leave, the actual cost of the compassionate care leave, and the actual cost of the illness leave. They are nowhere to be found here. We have to refer to the amounts that Quebec pays for parental leave and maternity leave. We conclude from this that the cost is clearly too high.

The coverage that is provided applies to self-employed persons earning at least $6,000 a year. I understand this is to facilitate the accounting rules in regard to taxation. The contributions that self-employed persons make will be determined when they fill out their income tax returns, that is to say, at the end of the financial year on the basis of their income during that year.

This brings me to another aspect of the bill that we need to take a closer look at. Self-employed workers who pay their premiums this year and then take six weeks of compassionate care leave, the purpose of which is to provide end-of-life care, would therefore be making a commitment to contribute for the rest of their working lives as self-employed persons. Yet, participation is said to be voluntary. I can understand that they cannot just make an opportunistic contribution and pull out after availing themselves of the plan. I understand that. We should, however, see if something could not be done differently, because this seems to be going too far.

Those who contribute for one year will be able to withdraw from the plan at any time, provided they have not availed themselves of it. If self-employed individuals join—and let us not forget that participation is voluntary—they will be able to withdraw, as long as they have not availed themselves of the plan. Otherwise, they will have to participate for the rest of their working lives. We should look for a way to come up with a more realistic measure with respect to the type of commitment self-employed workers have to make.

Before yielding the floor to a member from a different party, let me remind the House that, in Quebec, the self-employed will continue to benefit from maternity and parental leave administered by Quebec. Therefore, they will not benefit from this bill like the rest of Canada.

They will be charged the same amounts, which represent 75% of the costs, while Quebec will be assuming the largest part of the costs, given that maternity leave and parental leave make up 75% of special leave costs. The percentages for the self-employed will be reversed. While the federal government bears 25% of the costs, they will have to pay 100% in terms of premiums. The way the Conservatives look at it, this represents 75% of the total cost, and the federal government will be responsible for 25%. We estimate that the self-employed will be paying 50% too much.

This bill also provides that a person who is absent from work because of a work-related injury will be covered. In Quebec, we have a program supervised by the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, the CSST, which covers costs and which pays benefits to a person who is absent from work because of an occupational injury or disease. Federal coverage will now be provided, but this will not benefit Quebec, because it has already provided such services since the late sixties. Quebec workers are paying good money for that protection. In fact, it is primarily employers who contribute to the fund, because of their responsibility as employers. Providing coverage in Quebec will not cost the federal government anything because coverage is already provided, but self-employed persons will have to pay premiums to the federal government. This is another point that we will have to examine very closely during our review in committee.

What we need is a comprehensive overhaul of the employment insurance system. As we mentioned, Bill C-308, which I sponsored for the Bloc Québécois, proposes some measures that should be part of this process, including working 360 hours to qualify for benefits, making the 50-week benefit period—instead of 45 weeks—permanent, and increasing the rate of weekly benefits to 60% of a claimant's earnings. Our bill also provides coverage for self-employed persons.

The government would have achieved two things by supporting Bill C-308, ensuring its passage through all the stages, and not seeking royal assent. This would have allowed us to do a really conscientious job and, more importantly, would have been socially responsible, because we would have taken into consideration a number of factors to avoid the aberrations that we mentioned earlier and that will have to be corrected along the way.

So we are going to support the principle of this legislation, as long as we can make the amendments that I suggested earlier. In the meantime, I urge the government and all parliamentarians to also support my Bill C-308, at third reading, in the near future.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts be read a second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his speech.

He made several references to their pink book. I remember their pink book. I hope pink stands a better chance for success than red did, because as I recall, the red book talked about the GST and made all kinds of promises that were never kept.

My Liberal colleague is also trying to take credit for something, as though it had been his party's idea to grant benefits to self-employed workers. I would remind this House that when the Liberals were in power, they did absolutely nothing for self-employed workers. In contrast, our party, the NDP, made recommendations in its 1999 report. They can be found on page 12. We mentioned this, proposed it in the House of Commons and made requests in committee. At that time, the workers were saying:

Self-employed workers are not eligible for employment insurance and benefit from almost no social protection. We must take a closer look at what is really happening on the new labour market and explore ways to help so-called self-employed workers contribute to and benefit from the system.

My question is for the Liberal member. If the Liberals were in power, would self-employed workers who lose their jobs and are not covered by Bill C-56—which the Conservatives just introduced—be covered if they are not working? That is what self-employed workers were talking about: parental leave, maternity leave, sick leave, compassionate leave and other benefits if they do not have a job. That is what they said across the country. I wonder if the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour can answer this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-56, the fairness for the self-employed act.

The Liberals will support the bill in principle. We want to get it to committee to have a look at it. It might take some considerable review because a lot of people have opinions on it, some favourable and some perhaps not. I think people, more than anything else, will have questions about it.

It strikes me that there is a bit of regret in that one of two things has occurred in the bill. The government and its departments, including human resources, have looked at this for some time, along with models and proposals. If that is the case, it was not shared with the EI working group in the summer, of which I was a part. That was part of the mandate of the group. However, there was no serious proposal made to the group.

In spite of consistent questions, particularly from my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who asked whether the government had any information, the response was no. She said that there must be something as it was in the platform of the Conservative Party. If there was any information, it belonged to the Conservative Party and it would not share it. It was a dichotomous situation. Either the department was working on things that were not shared with us or the bill was rushed through and had some flaws in it. We will decide which one of those it is as it goes forward.

However, this is a good step forward for Canadians who are self-employed, a modest one albeit but a step forward. It looks at certain benefits for people who are self-employed and would like to be part of the employment insurance system.

Another question is one that I just asked the minister. I will quote from page 100 of the budget book of January 27. It states:

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development will be asked to establish an Expert Panel that will consult Canadians on how to best provide self-employed Canadians with access to EI maternity and parental benefits.

The minister indicated that the expert the panel intended to consult was me and that the EI working group was supposed to do this work, which clearly was not the intent back when the budget came forward.

On Tuesday night, during a bill briefing, I asked officials this question. What about the commitment in the budget to have an expert group? They had no idea what I was even talking about. It was never seriously considered, unless they can prove the opposite. Even the parliamentary secretary was confused as to whether there had actually been a commitment.

Clearly, not many Canadians were consulted. We have not heard from the minister that she has consulted a lot of Canadians. She quoted some people after the fact, indicating that some may like the direction of the bill, and why not?

I am sure there is some merit to the bill and we hope this might be an opportunity for Parliament to work. We can look at the bill in a serious way in committee, me and my colleagues on the Liberal side, along with the member for Chambly—Borduas, who works and lives this file, and I suspect the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who steps in for the New Democrats on the human resources committee.

There are people who can seriously look at this and identify the flaws and opportunities to make the bill better. I hope that happens and that in the spirit of co-operation, perhaps even the spirit of Christmas, as the bill works its way through committee that might in fact occur.

We do have some concerns about premiums. There has not been any estimate as to what the cost to the government would be. We have heard there is a premium rate and that it will be differentiated for the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec already has certain benefits, maternal and parental, and people can opt in. Will the rate people in Quebec pay be suitable for the level of benefits they would have and will there be a cost to the government?

One could assume that in the first year there will be a spike in premiums as people enter the program. They will have to be in it for at least a year before they can draw benefits, so there will be any outlay in benefits. However, as the benefits start to catch up to the premium, what will be the cost and who will pay that cost? Will it be the consolidated revenue fund of the Government of Canada, as the government did with the extra five weeks in January, or will it be the EI fund where the money for Bill C-50 will come out of?

That is a big difference because, as we know, the government has set up a separate EI financing board, which only has $2 billion to work with. We have already heard from the Chief Actuary of Canada that the $2 billion is nowhere near enough to fund the programs that exist without adding new programs. That is one question we will ask.

However, I want to take a second and talk about a group of people in Parliament who have done some magnificent work. Over the last few years, the National Liberal Women's Caucus has established three pink books. These pink books came out in 2006, 2007 and 2009. In each of those pink books, the National Liberal Women's Caucus has addressed this issue of self-employment and the importance that it has for Canadian women.

In the one that was released recently, I will quote from page 16. It states:

Another significant group in the labour force are self-employed women. The latest statistics reveal that more than 1 in 10 employed women in Canada are self-employed. In 2004, almost 840 000 women were self-employed. Women entrepreneurs face many challenges, including difficulty in accessing capital and benefits. The majority of women small-business owners earn $30 000 per year or less and have no access to low-cost health care, no protection for disability, no employment insurance or maternity benefits, and cannot afford private sector insurance and pension plans.

Following that, it has a recommendation, which states:

Permit self-employed workers to participate in the special benefits programs under the EI program as recommended by the Standing Commons Committee on the Status of Women in its June 2007 report, “Improving the Economic Security of Women: Time to Act.” This change would give self-employed workers access to maternity and parental benefits and the Compassionate Care Benefit.

I congratulate the government on adopting one of the recommendations from the pink book. I would encourage it to go further and adopt all of the recommendations in that book. If the pink book, which coincidentally is pink, were adopted in full by the Government of Canada, I would not have to be a member of Parliament. A lot of the work would be done. I want to commend members of our women's caucus for the outstanding work they do, particularly on the social side, but also on the economic and environmental sides.

The recommendations the caucus have made have been very important. People such as the member for Beaches—East York and the member for Winnipeg South Centre have been champions of this issue. We have new members of the national women's caucus, such as the member for Brossard—La Prairie, who has done some fabulous work on this issue as well. The Liberal caucus has been looking at this for a long while.

I also want to refer to a report that came out in June of 2009. This is a report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women entitled, “Towards Improving Access to EI Benefits for Women in Canada”. Again, with the House's indulgence, I would like to quote from that. It states:

A measure which can be taken to limit the problem of moral hazard would be to extend exclusively EI special benefits to self-employed individuals. The Quebec Parental Insurance Plan (QPIP) has extended its coverage to self-employed individuals for maternity and parental benefits. The Committee heard from several witnesses that QPIP can serve as a possible model for a federal program.

There are many good recommendations in the report. Recommendation 14 states:

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada make maternity and parental benefits as flexible and equal as the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan by expanding eligibility, benefit levels and duration of EI benefits.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada extend benefits to the self-employed using the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan as its model.

That also was a very good report and one of the things that our human resources committee would do.

I will ask for the indulgence of my colleagues from Chambly—Borduas, Acadie—Bathurst and my colleagues on the government side. We should have a joint committee study, at least one meeting where we bring in the status of women committee and look at this together, because of the specific implications it has for women's issues. There may be other committees that would be affected as well, such as finance or other committees.

This is a very broad bill, a long bill, a technical bill and a detailed bill. We have to do a bit of serious evaluation of it.

There are models and we have had significant groups, such as the National Liberal Women's Caucus and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, that have given us recommendations. We do not have to start from zero. We can take what the minister has given us. Again, I think there is a very real possibility that we can make this bill better for more Canadians.

However, we are discussing Bill C-56 and there are certain things that it would do.

The proposed legislation will provide the same number of weeks of benefit as paid employees have under their EI program. To recap, that is 15 weeks of maternity benefits, 35 weeks of parental and adoption benefits, 15 weeks of sickness and 6 weeks of compassionate care benefits.

I want to address the issue of Quebec. Quebec has a far more advanced social infrastructure than most provinces in Canada. It has made it a purpose to provide a solid social infrastructure system in the province of Quebec. It has a plan for parental and maternal benefits in Quebec. People in Quebec will still have the option to partake in the other plan as well, and they will pay a lower premium rate. Off the top of my head that the rate is 1.73%. It goes down to 1.37%. Is that a fair and accurate reduction for the amount of services to be provided?

We need to look at the entrance requirements. Normally for special benefits it would be an hours-based entrance requirement of 600 hours. Because we are talking about the self-employed, the determination is that it would be a threshold of $6,000 in pre-tax income. We need to have a look at that. The weekly benefits will be calculated by taking the claimant's income from the previous tax year and dividing it by 52. When this gets to committee and people come forward saying they would like to participate in this or they represent a group that would like to participate in it but they have a certain question, we should hear them. This is where the committee can do some work.

The minister has indicated that when we look at EI for the self-employed and special benefits, the questions we have to ask are these. What is the pre-attachment and the post-attachment to the labour force? What is the pre-attachment and the post-attachment to premiums? It has been determined that people have to pay in advance for a year before they can claim benefits. However, once they have claimed a benefit, they have to pay premiums for the rest of their life as long as they are self-employed. We have to look at that. We have to look at the numbers both for the individual and for the EI fund, which will be financing this at the end of day, and determine if that makes sense.

Will people take part in the program if they know they have to pay premiums years after they finished drawing benefits? I do not think we know that yet and I am not sure we will know that until we have a chance to look at it in a very serious way.

We believe this is a plan that has merit. We think self-employed people are looking for this. I can recall talking with a gentleman by the name of Chris Hopkins from Montague, Prince Edward Island. He has long campaigned for EI for self-employed. An article in July quotes him as follows:

It's too late for me, it's not going to benefit me, but it could benefit a lot of people, especially in these recessionary times that we have...I'm no longer self-employed, I'm just plain out there, an unknown statistic, not classed as unemployed because I was never employed, I was self-employed. So I'm a non-entity in the eyes of the government.

People who have been on websites, making appearances and rallying troops to this issue are the kind of folks we should probably listen to at this point in time. We have an opportunity to make this a good bill to do what they have asked us, which is to extend benefits to self-employed. Folks like that deserve some credit on a day like this and they deserve to be listened to as we move through the committee process.

As I have indicated, we are generally in support of this and we hope the bill is as good as the minister says. If it is not as good as she says, which is very possible, we hope we can make it better with her and her government's co-operation, working together with the opposition. However, we are going to ask questions.

One of the first questions will be why the bill came forward without the input of the promised expert panel. In the budget the Conservatives specifically said that an expert panel would consult and then determine what would be an appropriate way to provide EI to the self-employed.

In June, when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition determined that there would be an EI working group, the Prime Minister indicated that for the self-employed the government would consider looking beyond maternal parental sickness and compassionate care. He said that anything was on the table. He said that the EI working group would have a look at this.

We did not get the information that we needed. We never got a serious proposal. But to suggest that this group became the expert panel that the Prime Minister had indicated is just a smokescreen. The government did not appoint that expert panel. Why not? Why were the ministerial officials who briefed us the other day totally unaware that that commitment had even been made?

It is a highly technical bill. There may be flaws. There may be exclusions. What is the cost to government? That is a key point.

I want to go back to the fact that last year the government set up the CEIFB, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, which is supposed to be an arm's-length organization from government that will look at EI, that will determine premium rates, and that would invest moneys that are in the account. The problem is the government only put in $2 billion.

Liberals, at the human resources committee, supported by opposition members, said we have to have a look at this and we studied this. One of the people that we brought in was Mr. Bruno Gagnon, from the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, and he spoke to the fact that a $10 billion to $15 billion reserve was sufficient. He stated:

Let's assume that a recession hits Canada and unemployment levels rise to 8%. The payment to out-of-work Canadians increases by approximately $3 billion. So the $2 billion reserve of the board is depleted and the EI account has to borrow $1 billion from the government. In this situation we might have to raise the premiums above the legislated limit of 0.15%. Consideration of applying the 0.15% would fall to ministers. It would not be a very easy decision, because if you applied the 0.15% ceiling you would run a deficit and the deficit would accumulate. The impact on Canadian businesses, which pay nearly 60% of the cost of employment insurance, would be huge...Workers would have to pay 40% of the cost when they were already at risk of losing their jobs,--

He was talking, at this point in time, suggesting what would happen if employment went to 8%. Well, it has gone to 8%. The demands on the system are much higher than they were then. The demands on the system are much higher than the government would acknowledge. The demands on the system are possibly going to be made more robust by this bill. So, we just need to have a look at the financing side of it.

Who exactly is defined as self-employed? There is a whole range of people who would consider themselves self-employed. Who all is included in the definitions under this bill? We need to have a full understanding of that.

Another question is, why not full EI benefits? If we are extending EI benefits from maternal, parental, compassionate care, sickness, then would why we not look at EI benefits to all self-employed people on some kind of basis? What is the model for that?

So, this is a limited-scope bill in that it targets specific measures. Maybe that is the safest thing to do. Maybe that is what Canadians want. However, maybe Canadians would rather have the full meal deal when it comes to accessing employment insurance.

Is the $6,000 pre-tax earnings threshold appropriate?

The issue of Quebec and how this plan will interact with QPIP in Quebec is important as well.

There is significant work that has to be done on this bill. I think, as I said before, that this is an opportunity for all members of this House, and particularly the members of the human resources committee, a committee that generally works very well together, a committee that is well chaired by the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook, a committee that has a lot on its plate already.

We are doing a study on poverty that will see us going out to western Canada the week after we get back from the break week to hear further testimony and hear witnesses about poverty and how do we actually do something about this in Canada. So, we have a lot on our plate. But this bill is important. I think we can give it the consideration that it deserves. I think we should see what people like Chris Hopkins and others around the country who have fought on this issue for a long time. I have not been in contact with Chris Hopkins recently, but if he is around, I encourage him to contact members of the committee and let us know what he thinks of this bill.

So, hopefully, as we head toward Christmas in this Parliament, we will have a sense of co-operation on this that will allow us to take a bill, perhaps improve it at committee, determine its strengths, understand its weaknesses, and work together to bring forward a bill that truly does provide an opportunity for the self-employed in Canada.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources made a great speech outlining the benefits of Bill C-56. Recently, the House also passed Bill C-50, which is currently in the Senate. It makes a big difference for those long-tenured workers who are laid off.

I think we can all agree that the best way to help unemployed people is to help them find a new job. When I go door to door in my riding, once in a while I run into someone who has lost his or her job but has gone out and started his or her own business. It is clear that this initiative will really help these people.

How could any MP stand in this place and oppose the measures that are in this great bill?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that there are 500,000 self-employed workers in Quebec, and we want to help them. It is also important to remember that Quebec has a special program under which those workers receive maternity and paternity benefits. Quebec's program is mandatory, however.

Bill C-56 will introduce a voluntary program that will allow self-employed workers to opt into the employment insurance plan and receive sickness and even compassionate care benefits. The rate is comparable to the rate for employment insurance in Quebec: $1.36 per $100 of earnings. The same formula is used throughout Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that we welcome with great interest this bill which, of course, should be improved. For years now, the Bloc Québécois has been asking that self-employed workers, who account for approximately 22% of the workforce in Quebec, be included. I think that the minister talked about 17% across Canada. Whatever the numbers, the fact is that they have become a very significant pool of workers with little or no coverage, particularly at the federal level. So far, these workers have been without any EI coverage.

We agree with the principle of this bill and, with the minister and her department, we would like to look at ways to improve it so that it is of the greatest possible benefit to the self-employed.

Where Quebec is concerned, with respect to special leave, we know that everything having to do with maternity and parental leave was transferred to the province, with a cost transfer of 37¢ per $100, if I am not mistaken. We know that Quebec is now looking after maternity and parental leave. This means that only part of the benefits from Bill C-56 will apply to Quebec's self-employed workers.

The other benefits, namely compassionate leave and sick leave, account for only 25% of the total cost.

Could the minister tell this House how it came to be that 75% of the cost is being charged for something that is worth 25%?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

moved that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today I am very pleased to introduce Bill C-56, Fairness for the Self-Employed Act. Our government knows that self-employed Canadians should not have to choose between their family and their business responsibilities. Extending access to employment insurance special benefits to the self-employed is the fair and the right thing to do.

Our government knows that families are the foundation of this great country and this bill is yet another example of how our government is providing support and choice for Canadian families. It is good family policy and it represents one of the most significant enhancements to the EI program in the last decade.

Self-employed workers in Canada are often the innovators in our economy. These are people who contribute their creativity, their courage and their capital in pursuit of a better life. Their dynamism strengthens our communities, and that, in turn, makes Canada a stronger country.

Some 2.6 million Canadians are self-employed. They account for more than 15% of the working population.

It is very important to note that the self-employed have been asking for these benefits for quite some time and for 13 years, the former Liberal government completely ignored them and their families, but our Conservative government is responding by taking action.

Self-employed Canadians come from a broad range of situations and their incomes vary widely. There are professionals, scientists, technicians, tradespeople and retailers. Their work ranges from agriculture and construction to real estate and the performing arts.

It is important to note that about one-third of all self-employed women are of child-bearing age and many of them are choosing self-employment because it provides the flexibility of combining a career with raising a family. In tough economic times like these, self-employment also offers a way for many laid-off workers to stay active in the labour market.

Our government believes that the supports available to people who choose this path are insufficient today and that is why we are talking about supports that many salaried employees consider a given. Salaried employees who pay EI premiums have access, through the EI program, to a number of special benefits: maternity leave, parental leave, sickness and injury leave, and compassionate care leave. The self-employed, sadly, do not, and our government believes this is unfair.

A year ago, the Prime Minister said:

Self-employed Canadians, and those who one day hope to be, shouldn’t have to choose between starting a family and starting a business because of government policy. It should allow them to pursue their dreams, both as entrepreneurs and as parents.

At the time, we planned to offer maternity and parental benefits to self-employed workers. Our Conservative government keeps its promises. This bill delivers even more than we promised. Our government plans to offer all special employment insurance benefits, including maternity benefits, parental benefits, sickness benefits and compassionate care benefits, to self-employed workers

This bill will have a major impact on the lives of Canadian self-employed workers. Self-employed mothers and fathers will now be able to take a break to take care of their newborns for a year. They will not miss their child's first steps or first words because now, they can collect maternity and parental benefits.

We know that increasing numbers of adults are becoming part of what is known as the sandwich generation and are taking care of an elderly parent. With access to compassionate care benefits, self-employed Canadians will be able to take time away from work to care for a terminally ill parent or other relative. Every Canadian knows how important it is to be able to spend time with and to care for family, and this bill will give self-employed Canadians the same opportunity.

Overall, special benefits for the self-employed would mirror those available to salaried employees under the EI program. Contributions and benefits for the self-employed would be comparable whether earnings came from self-employment, salaried employment, or a mix of the two.

While our overall goal is to make these special benefits for the self-employed the same as those for salaried employees, some adjustments are needed to reflect the unique nature of this type of employment. Specifically, participation in the program will be voluntary. Qualification will be based on earnings, not on hours worked. The self-employed will have to contribute to the program for at least one year prior to claiming benefits, and once they have made a claim, they will need to continue contributions on future self-employed income.

The self-employed would pay the same premium rate as salaried employees and they would not be required to pay the employer's portion of the premium rate. This is quite simply to recognize the fact that the self-employed will not have access to EI regular benefits, the ones that people collect when they have been laid off.

We expect that between 300,000 and 500,000 Canadians will apply for this coverage over the next three years.

I would like to clarify that self-employed workers in Quebec will continue to receive maternity and parental benefits under the Quebec parental insurance plan. Now they can also receive the sickness and compassionate care benefits that the Government of Canada is offering through the employment insurance system.

The changes that we are making to create fairness for the self-employed go well beyond the commitments in the Speech from the Throne and budget 2009. This is one of the most significant enhancements to the EI program in the last decade, and it is just the latest in a whole series of timely enhancements that we have made to ensure that EI remains responsive to the needs of Canadians.

Our economic action plan is geared toward helping Canadian workers and their families get through the global economic downturn. By helping Canadian workers in all walks of life, we are helping families and communities in our overall economy. We believe that these individual Canadian entrepreneurs will play a leading role in our economic recovery. We need their skills, we need their experience and we need their energy to meet the challenges to come. That is why our government believes that these Canadians deserve to have access to EI special benefits, because it is the fair and right thing to do.

Our government knows that self-employed Canadians should not have to choose between their family and their business responsibilities. Members do not have to take my word for it; there has been a chorus of positive response across a broad range of employment sectors to the tabling earlier this week of Bill C-56.

We heard from the agricultural community. Richard Phillips, the director of Grain Growers of Canada said Tuesday on CTV News that for a lot of young farm families, this could be the difference between whether they stay on the farm or leave the farm. He added in a news release that this legislation is very welcome. He said that this has huge potential for quality of life in rural Canada.

From the small business community, Catherine Swift, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said in yesterday's Montreal Gazette that the initiative fills a “glaring gap” for people running their own business, especially women. She said, “We have a lot of women members. They would like to have a child, and yet abandoning your business is not an option”.

Next, from a town which forms part of my beautiful riding of Haldimand—Norfolk, Shane Curtis, president of the Tillsonburg Chamber of Commerce said Tuesday in the Tillsonburg News:

I think it's a fantastic thing from a couple different perspectives. It promotes women to be in business and to be self-employed. It will promote self-employed women to have children.

From one end of the country to the other, people have been getting behind this legislation. John Winter, the chair of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, said in a release on Tuesday:

It is only fair.... British Columbians who hang their own shingle should not have to choose between raising a family and raising a business.

I could not agree with him more.

The contractors have waded in as well. In a media release on Tuesday, Phil Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association said:

Many independent contractors work as owner operators, from truckers to drywallers to painters, and with these challenging economic times, the extra security offered with extending EI special benefits is welcome.

And it continues. Dale Ripplinger, president of the Canadian Real Estate Association is quoted in a news release on Tuesday, saying:

This is an important step to level the benefits playing field for self-employed Canadians.... We look forward to working with the government to ensure access to EI benefits for REALTORS(R), which can help balance career and family life.

I would suggest that the opposition listen not just to me but to Canadians, who are demanding that this legislation be passed, people like Stephen Waddell, national executive director of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, better known to many as ACTRA, which represents creative people across the country. In a news release he said:

This legislation is a question of basic fairness and equal treatment for Canadian workers. We're calling on the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc to avoid an election and get this initiative passed into law.

The previous Liberal government ignored these Canadians for 13 long years. Self-employed Canadians want the bill to pass. They are trusting us to deliver for them, but they also know that the Liberals and the Bloc let down other Canadians. Hundreds of thousands of long-tenured workers were let down by the Liberals and the Bloc through their opposition to Bill C-50 earlier this week. Surely, when many of their own members have been calling for this bill, I would hope they would get behind the fairness to the self-employed bill.

On March 5 of this year, the Leader of the Opposition himself said in the Toronto Star, that the self-employed are the largest category of Canadians without EI protection and that he thinks if we are going to be a compassionate society and if we want to get stimulus in, that would be a good place to go.

Even the Bloc has expressed support. The member for Saint-Lambert said in this House on the same day, “I think offering self-employed workers the opportunity to contribute to employment insurance on a voluntary basis is long overdue”.

Finally, on Tuesday night on CTV's Power Play, the Liberal member for Markham—Unionville said that the Liberals support this bill in principle.

I encourage them all to support this bill in reality by voting for it.

The Liberals and the Bloc let down long-tenured workers. Will they let down the millions of self-employed Canadians as well? Self-employed Canadians want to know if they will be let down too. Canadians want this bill to pass.

Employment Insurance

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56 is unfair to Quebec's self-employed workers. They are already paying $0.86 per $100 to the provincial government for parental benefits, and now the federal government wants them to pay $1.36 more just to access sickness and compassionate care benefits, which cost the fund next to nothing compared to parental benefits.

Will the minister reduce contributions for Quebec's self-employed workers so that they are in proportion to the benefits they would be entitled to? It would only be fair.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today our Conservative government introduced the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act. This bill would provide self-employed Canadians with access to maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits on a voluntary basis.

This is yet another way our government is supporting Canadian families. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of HRSDC please explain to this House how this bill will help self-employed Canadians balance work and family?

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)