Bill C-2 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations

Employment Insurance Act

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I know I must address the Chair, but I also want to address unemployed Canadians, particularly those from Quebec who are listening and especially the 60% of them who could not benefit from the EI plan. They were excluded for many reasons. That is why many amendments to the bill were requested by the opposition parties.

When a government amends an act as important as the Employment Insurance Act, there are always questions to be asked. First, why is it amending it? Because there are pressing demands, which often come from the opposition parties.

Let us remember that in 1996 the Liberal government made major changes to the Employment Insurance Act, which included the infamous intensity rule. With that rule, seasonal workers were virtually excluded from the plan, to the point where today only 42% of workers who could use benefits are eligible for benefits.

This was a change made in 1996 by the Liberal government. It directly contributed to the increase in the EI fund surplus. Since the 1996 changes, a surplus of $5 billion was added to the fund each and every year. At the present time, this surplus is close to $32 billion.

Once more, in 2001, the Liberal government is proposing a legislative amendment. We should always ask ourselves why the government would change this legislation. The answer should be that it is for the good of the unemployed in Canada, and particularly in Quebec.

We know, of course, that the intensity rule, the purpose of which was to make sure that almost no seasonal unemployed worker could get employment benefits, will be abolished. In ridings such as Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, where 65% of the economy is based on agriculture, forestry and tourism, more workers will be made eligible for employment benefits.

It must be said that this is something the opposition parties have been requesting since 1996. The opposition parties have been asking the government for this for five years.

Finally, it is not the workers of Quebec and Canada who are seasonal, it the jobs that are seasonal. It is not the workers' fault they do not have access to an EI plan.

It must be understood that I am talking about an EI plan. On many occasions I have heard members of the government describe the employment insurance plan as a social safety net. The employment insurance plan has never been a social safety net. It is an insurance paid for entirely, half and half, by the workers and their employers. Since this plan belongs to the employers and the employees in Quebec and Canada, the $31.4 billion surplus belongs to them also.

We would have expected that the amendments to Bill C-2 would include, on top of the elimination of the intensity rule for seasonal workers we wanted, important changes to the plan because it belongs to the employers and the employees in Quebec and Canada.

I will repeat, for the sake of workers and especially the unemployed in Quebec and in Canada who are watching this debate, that the bill does not improve the plan and does nothing to correct the decades old inequities under the Employment Insurance Act.

We still have a waiting period, the infamous two week penalty for workers. They do not get any benefits for these two weeks. They just have to wait.

I find this most unfortunate because it does a lot of damage, in view of the fact that an increasing number of businesses in Quebec, among others, are hit with damage or fires, as a result of which there are temporary closures for many reasons other than the going out of business.

Once again, workers who find themselves without a job overnight because of a fire or other disaster are subject to the qualifying period, the famous two week penalty. They lose the first two weeks and do not receive any compensation in spite of the fact that they bought insurance that they have been paying 50:50 with their employer, an insurance policy called the EI fund. There is still a waiting period.

This is the terminology the Liberal government found to try to convince them to accept this two week penalty. Notwithstanding the fact that they have an insurance, they still have a two week penalty. These two weeks inevitably contribute to increase the fund. This surplus, this revenue from the EI fund, now totals more than $31 billion.

Once again, the bill tabled did not contain any of the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. This particular amendment was rejected. We still find in the bill the two week waiting period, the penalty the workers are facing for losing their job. Even if the business does not shut down, even after a disaster, they are still subjected to this two week loss, which is used, among other things, to increase the EI surplus. So, there are no major changes.

Let us talk about the $31.4 billion surplus. Why has the government introduced this bill? As members may have guessed, it is because the Liberal Party, the government, covets the $31.4 billion that belongs to workers of Quebec and Canada.

Clause 9 of the bill would allow the government to get its hands on the surplus of the employment insurance fund. The government wants to do that for its own ends, that is to spend the money in any other program it deems appropriate but which will not necessarily serve the interests of workers in Quebec and Canada.

Why does the bill not provide for an independent fund, which would belong, since half of it is paid for by workers in Quebec, to workers as well as employers and which would be administered by workers and employers, who could then choose the appropriate way to use the fund?

Since I only have a minute left, I will use my time to try to promote awareness among members on the other side, who too often take the employment insurance fund, which actually is an insurance fund, for a social security fund. This is where the problem lies.

They want to turn employment insurance into a social security fund, which the government wants to get its hands on and use in a totally different area, which government members call social security, while in fact employment insurance is an insurance fund that belongs to workers and should only be used for them. We should have an independent fund administered by workers, in their own interests.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, may I say that you look very comfortable and proper in that chair. You are doing a good job in recognizing those of us in the opposition parties who would like to add to the debate.

I will begin my remarks by registering a grievance of sorts. In the short period of time that I have been a member of parliament more often than not when I get up to speak it is during a time allocation situation. I am not saying that all bills which go through the House of Commons end up with some form of closure or time allocation but, by some bizarre freak of nature, every time I want to speak it is under the circumstances that there has been time allocation imposed. Frankly, it is starting to jade my world view of the House.

I want to register as a grievance to the federal government that my experience in the House is being warped by its abuse of the system and by its stamping all over the democratic process by once again implementing time allocation.

Speaking, with what time I have, to Bill C-2, let me point out that I and the NDP caucus believe that Bill C-2 is fundamentally flawed, not because of what is in the bill, because there are elements we support within the bill, but because of what the bill fails to do.

Bill C-2 fails to recognize the real problem with the EI system, which is that nobody qualifies any more. It is not an employment insurance program if unemployed people do not get any insurance benefits out of it. The very name has become a misnomer. Those who need the benefits that the EI system is supposed to provide do not get them.

We are starting from a very dangerous premise here. We have this revenue generating cash cow for the federal government that is failing to meet the needs of unemployed workers. We then have the government ramming this through before substantial changes can be made to address the real flaws and errors within the program.

What really bothers me is that even the amendments do not find their origins in any real desire on the part of the federal government to meet the needs of unemployed workers. Most of what we see in Bill C-2 and in any EI reform in the past 10 years seems to find its origins in this underlying position that there are lazy people who would rather sit on EI than take part in the workforce. The government has decided therefore to use some kind of a tough love policy against these people to kickstart them into the workforce no matter what their circumstances. The whole thing finds its origins in the attitude that people would rather be unemployed and on EI than taking part in the workforce.

I remember the hysteria and fear in the mid-seventies, when UIC was available, about the UIC ski team of teenagers in Banff cheating UIC. During that period of time the government made a nationwide survey on the issue of UIC fraud and abuse. It found that there were actually more federal government Tory cabinet ministers guilty of fraud on a ratio and proportion basis than there were UIC recipients guilty of fraud.

Every year approximately 200 EI recipients are called to task for some kind of abuse of the system. During the Mulroney years approximately 30% of federal Tory cabinet ministers were guilty of fraud compared to an infinitesimal, an amount almost too small to count, of EI recipients who were called to task on fraud. The attitude that there is widespread abuse of the system bothers me when I know, because I deal with people who use the EI system frequently, that simply is not true.

I began my speech today by saying that Bill C-2 is flawed because of what it fails to do. It fails to deal with the eligibility issue. The fact that less than 40% of unemployed people qualify for unemployment insurance should strike people as somehow being wrong? It actually gets worse when we deal with unemployed women. There is a real gender issue here. Less than 25% of unemployed women qualify for any benefit whatsoever. Less than 15% of unemployed youth under the age of 25 qualify for any benefit whatsoever. How can we even call this an insurance system when virtually nobody qualifies?

Eligibility is the first issue. The rules should state that when we are unemployed and need income maintenance, the benefits will be there. When we are forced to pay premiums it is only fair that we have a reasonable expectation of collecting the benefit.

The second fundamental flaw is the way the government arrives at what our benefits will be. Even if we are lucky enough to be one of those 40% of unemployed Canadians who qualify for benefits, the way that the government calculates the benefit is so wrong that we end up collecting far less per week than we used to under the old rules.

To get any benefits whatsoever is a Herculean task. Once we do qualify for benefits, the way that the government calculates our benefits we end up getting far less money. There are fewer people collecting and those who are collecting, collect less money. It is no wonder there is a surplus.

The surplus is the third thing I would like to address. I have said this in the House before and I need to keep saying it over and over again until it sinks in with the Canadian people just how badly the program is being abused and milked by the Liberal government and being used as some kind of cash cow. The surplus is $750 million per month. There is more money going into the program than is being paid out in benefits. That is $7 billion to $8 billion per year.

Now we find ourselves in a budgetary surplus situation. Let us look at the sources of the revenue that the government now calls its surplus: $35 billion to $43 billion surplus accumulated out of the EI system alone; $35 billion cut out of programs through the health and social transfer; and a further $30 billion surplus that everybody seems to have forgotten about, the public service pension plan by legislation, by act of parliament, was taken away from those workers last year.

It is no coincidence that when we add those three up, $35 billion, $35 billion and $30 billion, all on the backs of the unemployed, working people and those who need social programs, it adds up to $100 billion, which is exactly what the Minister of Finance gave in tax cuts to the wealthy and to corporations. I do not think it is any coincidence that those figures are identical. I just wanted to point that out.

The last few minutes that I have, I want to point out another shortcoming in Bill C-2 that is very close to my own personal experience. The apprenticeship system has suffered terribly under the changes to EI and, in Bill C-2, the government has chosen not to correct it. This is something for which there is almost unanimous support. Virtually every industry, academic and economist we have spoken to has agreed that this is wrong, yet it has not been addressed in Bill C-2. The two week waiting period that unemployed workers must wait before getting their first benefits is applied to apprentices when they are going through the trade school component of the apprenticeship.

In other words, they are being treated as if they are unemployed when they are not. They are apprentices. They are employed and have an attachment to the workforce. They are simply going through the annually scheduled eight week training period in community college and yet are being penalized with the two week waiting period at the front end.

This is a new change that was made in 1995-96. It has had the effect of driving people away from apprenticeship programs. A lot of young people simply cannot afford to be without income for that period of time and are choosing not to attend the eight week scheduled apprenticeship training in community college. Gradually a four year apprenticeship turns into a seven year apprenticeship and many simply are dropping out.

It is having a dilatory effect on the apprenticeship system and on industry because of what I believe is a miserly point of view on behalf of the Liberal government, using the EI system as a revenue generating cash cow instead of providing income maintenance to unemployed workers, and in this case, providing trade school apprenticeship training to people in the skilled trades.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when all is said and done, Bill C-2 should be viewed with some pride and a great deal of satisfaction by all parties in the House. The bill is evidence of an effective governance and effective law-making.

In 1996 the government set out to put in place a much improved plan to assist Canada's unemployed, to help get them back to work and keep them working. That plan had goals that are as vital today just as they were then: a fairer system that treats all workers more equitably; a system that encourages work and reduces dependence on benefits; a system that provides assistance to those most in need, namely people from low income families with children during periods of unemployment; and a system designed to help people get back to work and help keep them at work.

A very important part of that system included a provision to continuously monitor and assess the system to see if it was in fact living up to its design goals. As a result, the EI system has been adjusted to ensure it continues to serve the purposes for which it was introduced. Bill C-2 is another step in this evolutionary process and warrants the support of all members of the House.

This is how effective programs are designed and implemented. No regime should be fixed in amber, unresponsive to changing economic and social conditions. I sense that, in general, members opposite also welcome the changes proposed in the bill.

However it seems that much of the discussion on Bill C-2 has focused on the rate setting process for EI premiums. The government has been charged by members across that premiums are too high and benefits are inadequate. Surely we must acknowledge that rates have been consistently reduced in recent years.

The employee premium rate for 2001 has already been set at $2.25, down from $2.40 in 2000. This is the seventh straight year premiums have been reduced. At $2.25, employers and employees will save approximately $6.4 billion in 2001 compared to where the premiums were at when we took over as the government in 1994, which was $3.07. That is a total reduction in premiums of 82 cents. If that is taken as a percentage of the present rate of $2.25, that is a 32% reduction in rates. That is a very fundamental reduction.

The argument that a surplus in the EI account is evidence and that the premium rates are too high does not hold water. The EI account must be allowed to accumulate a surplus during periods of improving economic conditions to ensure that premiums do not have to be raised if the economy is in a downturn which would inevitably be accompanied by higher unemployment and higher demands on the EI account.

Surely we do not want to raise premium rates in an already depressed economy which would put a further damper on economic growth and job creation. We should bear in mind that during the last recession a $2 billion surplus in the EI account at the end of 1990 became a $6 billion deficit by the end of 1993, in spite of the rise in premiums. As to the adequacy of benefits, that is precisely what Bill C-2 would propose to improve.

The intensity rule would be removed. The so-called clawback provision would be adjusted to ensure that first time users and those on special benefits would be exempt from paying back the benefits. The re-entrant rules would be adjusted so that re-entrant parents would qualify for EI regular benefits with the same number of hours as other claimants when they returned to the labour force following an extended absence to care for young children.

The opposition has also criticized the provisions in Bill C-2 concerning rate setting, claiming that the process should be placed at arm's length from the government. However these criticisms are clearly beside the point. Even the auditor general questioned whether an arm's length treatment would improve the process. Arm's length or not, the question is what is the rate setting method that would best serve Canadian workers, employers and taxpayers?

The Standing Committee on Finance recommended the EI premium rate setting procedure be reviewed. The government is addressing this question and prior to Bill C-2 made a commitment to review the rate setting process over a two year period.

The auditor general stated that the review could result in a better methodology and that he welcome anything that would clarify the rate setting procedure. However, until such a review can be completed, the government has provided a means to ensure predictability and stability in the EI premiums.

The governor in council will set the premium rates for the year 2002-03 allowing time for review and allowing the government to adjust the changing economic conditions. Researching and deciding on a sound rate setting mechanism will require taking into consideration interests of workers, employers and taxpayers. This is not something we could hope to achieve through Bill C-2.

The Department of Finance, along with Human Resources Development Canada, will carry out a review during which all stakeholders will be consulted, including the EI commissioners representing workers and employers. Surely that is a better method. I would say that it is the only rational method for devising a rate setting structure that best meets the interests of all parties in the longer term. I believe that the hon. members should reserve their views and feelings on the rate setting method and permit the review to take its rational course.

The passage of Bill C-2 will present no obstacle to the successful completion of that review. That is why the House should give speedy passage to the bill and permit Canadians to begin benefiting from its improvements to the EI program.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, at report stage. Some of the proposed amendment are good, of course.

However, there is a major item we strongly dislike and that is the fact that the government wants to get its hands on the employment insurance fund surplus. The government clearly did not take this opportunity to make much more substantial changes to the situation related to the whole employment insurance fund, and to adopt measures that could have benefited many people who have been penalized for several years, in fact since 1993 when the Liberals came to power, because of the way they restructured the employment insurance system in order to shamelessly grab the surpluses year after year.

It is most unfortunate that after having created very high expectations, after having made campaign commitments and after having the Prime Minister admit he had probably made some mistakes, the government is now coming up with the same legislation it had introduced before the election. In many regions, in Quebec as well as in other provinces, this has provoked much discontent.

I would first like to draw a small picture of the coverage rate of the employment insurance system. In 1993, 65% of those losing their jobs were covered by the system. The cutting trend had started in the early 1990s, as in 1990, 83% of workers losing their jobs were still covered. In 1993 it was down to 65%. I am not blaming the present government, as a major restructuring was started by its predecessor.

In the last six years, this percentage has fallen to 43%. This is unbelievable. Cuts were more drastic than when there was an economic crisis, with a dreadful deficit. When the economic situation improved, the government started to generate a surplus but reduced the level of coverage. This means that now only four out of ten Canadians who lose their jobs are eligible for benefits. I am not even talking about the level of benefits, but only about the number of unemployed eligible for benefits.

Those most affected by this are women and young people. For those between 20 and 24 years of age, one out of four persons who lose their jobs will be covered by the EI system. As for women, the percentage is approximately 38%. So this is below average. They are the ones who have been most affected by the successive EI reforms.

It has been said many times by many people, but does not appear to move the government. Once again, what it wants is to shove some amendments through, rapidly and expeditiously, to send a message to the public, saying “Look, see the changes we have made”. A word of warning to all those with high expectations: better lower them, for in another year or year and a half they will see that the reform did not amount to much after all.

Some people may still believe that the government contributes to employment insurance. The fund has no government contribution. The only contributors are the employees and employers; the government does not contribute one red cent. It is the one that makes the decisions, the one that directs it, and now it is going to give itself more powers than ever, by limiting the commission's ability to set contribution rates, to define the size of the surplus to be generated.

Without having to contribute one cent, it is going to direct and define and also to pocket the surplus funds. This means, clearly, that every year—I am referring here just to the amount of the surplus in the fund—the government is going to get $6 billion from it to add to the general public funds.

The people who pay their contributions into the fund, the workers and the employers, are funding all manner of things other than an employment insurance plan. I repeat, this is supposed to be an insurance program.

Mr. Speaker, imagine if you or other members of this House were paying house or car insurance premiums and the company announced to you “Well, we collected the premiums for that but we have decided to apply them to something else. Instead of compensating people making claims, we are going to invest the money right and left, spend it on other things”. That would make no sense. An insurance plan should serve those who pay into it.

This is not what is happening with the $6 billion; the government may well say that it is putting it into health and other noble causes, but let them have the courage to call it a payroll tax or an employment tax. That is what employment insurance has turned into.

Let us look at the figures. For the year 2000, the contributions, and therefore the revenues, collected by the government from the employment insurance fund reached $17.2 billion. The plan itself cost $12.3 billion; therefore, there was a surplus of $5.6 billion for the year. This means that $5,600 million was taken from the employment insurance fund.

What would the situation be today if the fund had really been independent, with a separate bank account? There would now be $31.4 billion in that bank account. This shows the extent of the surplus accumulated, mainly over the last six years.

It is true the plan experienced deficits at times, for example in the early 1990s, during the recession, but the surpluses have largely covered those past deficits and have grown to an accumulated surplus of $31.4 billion.

There is no point going looking for that money, it will not be found. It was added to the consolidated fund and spent on all sorts of programs. Good or bad, those were not what that money was meant for. Such a practice is totally unacceptable and inadmissible. To collect taxes and use them for something else but their intended purpose is a bad management principle, which borders on immorality, if not outright illegality.

This situation will not improve because, with the measures being proposed now, next year's surplus will be similar. Some might say that we were keeping a reserve in case of another recession. Let us not kid ourselves.

If there were a recession tomorrow, the fund would be pretty much balanced. It is structured in such a way that it will not take a beating, because eligibility has been restricted, the number of hours needed to qualify increased and the duration of benefits decreased. The spending that is going to skyrocket if there is a recession is the spending on social assistance, which is funded by the provinces. This spending will go up dramatically and there will be no safety net, while the EI fund will pretty much balance or show a slight deficit.

Yes, the government could keep a cushion, a reserve, but not on the order of $30 billion. Thirty billion dollars could cover benefits for the next three years without a single additional cent in premiums being received.

If there were a separate account, everyone could be told “For the next three years they would not have to pay premiums because they would be drawn from the accumulated reserve”. Does this not give an idea of the size of the obscene surplus which has built up but disappeared because was been misappropriated?

In conclusion, there are a number of things we could do. The Bloc Quebecois has proposed a series of amendments and we would like to see the bill improved. For instance, the government could have abolished the waiting period, created a separate fund, increased the coverage rate from 55% to 60%, reduced to 300 the number of hours required to qualify for special benefits and increased the duration of benefits and indexed the annual ceiling. All sorts of measures could have been passed. I have a series of proposals which we have discussed in committee and have been discussing for a long time.

None of this is irresponsible because it can all be done without any threat to the fund. Even if all these suggestions and others were implemented, the fund would still have a surplus and a slight cushion for contingencies. The government is turning a deaf ear. The Minister of Finance prefers to rake in a surplus and do all sorts of things with it. That is why we will be voting against the bill at report stage and at third reading.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Given the motion that has just passed and the unanimous consent, I would like to clarify the business of the House because it has been changed. In any case, there have been consultations about future business which I would like to share it with the House.

After completing the debate on Bill C-2 at report stage, the House will return to third reading of Bill C-8, the financial institutions bill. After this we will call Bill C-18, the equalization bill; Bill C-17, the innovation foundation; and Bill C-22, the income tax bill, in that order.

Tomorrow shall be an allotted day, as already announced.

Wednesday shall be the day allocated for third reading of Bill C-2. I understand there will be some co-operation to ensure that all parties have a spokesperson on Wednesday. I intend to do my part on this side of the House in that regard.

On Thursday we shall resume the list from today, adding at the end Bill C-9, the elections bill. We shall continue the list on Friday, adding Bill C-12, the Judges Act amendment.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if you would seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for the conclusion of report stage of Bill C-2 later this day, one hour from now, be deferred until the conclusion of government orders later this day.

Employment Insurance Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 78(2) has been reached with regard to the allocation of time for Bill C-2. Therefore I move:

That in relation to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, not more than one further hour shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, at the expiry of the time provided for the report stage and at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allocated for the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put and disposed of forthwith and successively without further debate, amendment or adjournment.

Once the motion is passed, assuming it is, I would return to the House and I think there would be consent that the vote be deferred until this evening, to be taken at the same time as other votes.

Perhaps we should do it in steps. I will move the motion and then I will be back to Mr. Speaker.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

That being said, negotiations are still under way. There is at least the possibility of an agreement to a format. It is just that it was difficult to achieve it by the end of the day today. I do not want the House to think that negotiations are not continuing. They are, and even though I am now giving this notice I hope the negotiations will come to fruition at least as is possible.

Such being the case, I would not be moving the motion on Monday. Instead, I would be moving the motion that there has been a majority party agreement, which is still possible at least in theory. I wanted to notify members of that as well.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue consideration of Bill C-2, the employment insurance bill. We will then return to the second reading of Bill C-18, the equalization bill. That will be followed by Bill C-17 respecting the innovation foundation.

On Friday we will consider third reading of Bill C-8, the financial institution, and if necessary we will return to Bill C-18.

On Monday, we will return to Bill C-2. If it is completed at report stage, we will return to Bill C-18, C-17 or C-22 on the Income Tax Act, depending on which of these bills requires further consideration.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day, and I believe it is the Canadian Alliance's turn. On Wednesday, we will return to Bill C-2. We will also try to complete third reading of Bill C-12, the Judges Act amendments, and Bill C-9, the elections bill. If we have the time, I will also suggest completing Bill C-4, respecting the Sustainable Development Foundation, before adjourning for Easter.

Employment Insurance Act

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to Bill C-2.

My colleagues presented many aspects of the legislation that show that the government has no respect for employees as well as employers by not addressing their problems.

This legislation is hurting workers by refusing to address urgent situations and to correct the deficiencies of the current act.

What the Bloc Quebecois is asking for is clear. The measures the Bloc Quebecois is asking for are meant to correct flaws in the plan by taking into account the day to day condition of workers and a labour market that keeps changing, with students who have to combine a job and studying and an increasing number of independent workers. These two groups are not taken into account in the bill, but they will have to be soon.

It is the duty of the federal government to address the issue right away so that these two groups of workers are included just like other workers already covered by the plan.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government to respond to the hopes of workers, to further improve the EI plan and to eliminate discrimination in EI requirements.

We have to abolish the definition of labour force, because it penalizes directly the young and women in that they have to work a total of 910 hours in 52 weeks to qualify.

A women who re-enters the labour market after two years is considered a new entrant and not a member of the labour market. What a shame.

The same is true of young people who are also considered new entrants, because they are in their first job. This same definition allows certain workers to be eligible for the same plan with no more than 420 hours accumulated.

The self-employed have been completely forgotten. It might even be said that this segment does not exist at all, or worse, is not worth the bother to the government. Self-employed workers represented 12% of the total workforce in 1976. They represented 18% in 1999. The government cannot deny this segment of the population which now represents one worker in five. The figure is huge.

We must absolutely not forget that this sector of workers is growing. The federal government must, right now, include these workers fully in the employment insurance plan.

Another group penalized by this bill is that of young people. It creates a dichotomy in that students must go to school as well as work in order to survive and in the hopes of finding well paid work. However the standards in this bill give them no help at all.

The latest census in 1996 reported over 2.8 million full time students. According to the monitoring and assessment report one million individuals earned less than $2,000 and were therefore entitled to a refund.

However, only 40% of these people applied for a refund and 42% of them were under 25 years of age. In short, 2.6 million students are being taxed to study. Young people—

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope it is not my fiery comments that triggered the alarm. Anyway my mother would be very pleased with my speech.

To pick up where I left off, I was saying that the debate we are having today is somewhat preposterous because the flaws and the adverse impact of the EI reform have now been experienced for more than five years throughout Quebec and Canada. It has penalized farm workers, as I mentioned with regard to my riding, self-employed workers who are excluded and young families.

My colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville talked about this at length a while ago, but it is important for me to mention it again, as my riding of Joliette includes suburbs such as Le Gardeur and L'Assomption where many young families are finding it extremely difficult to get their lives organized, to combine work and family, and who should have access to sensible parental leave.

As a matter of fact, as I was winding up my speech when the alarm sounded I was saying that in Quebec we were imaginative enough to include self-employed workers in the parental leave program introduced by the minister of the day. Therefore, if the federal government had any imagination, we could solve all the problems that have been identified in the EI reform.

It is obvious that Bill C-2, just like its predecessor Bill C-44, solves none of the basic problems which have been identified by everybody. I am happy that the committee unanimously adopted the motion by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, asking that it report back on all these aspects by June 1.

I will concentrate on a particular aspect of Bill C-2 that we on this side consider fundamental, that is clause 9 in which the government claims the right to set the rate of EI premiums currently set by the Employment Insurance Commission with the approval of the governor in council and under the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance.

I know that the Minister of Finance has repeatedly ignored the commission's recommendations over the last few years, but there is at least a debate held regularly on the rate required to finance the measures provided for in the employment insurance program.

With clause 9 of Bill C-2 the government is trying to legalize what it is doing already, that is to legalize the misappropriation of funds we are witnessing with the creation of a surplus completely unrelated to the needs of the EI fund, a $35 billion surplus accumulated since 1995. This is totally unacceptable.

The premiums are paid by the workers and by the employers. We believe that it should be up to them, and only them, to set the rates needed for funding the measures provided for in the employment insurance plan.

The federal government accomplished quite a feat, and it is not the first time, when it achieved a consensus in Quebec among all partners in the labour market against clause 9, indeed against Bill C-2. When we see that the FTQ and the Conseil du patronat both denounce clause 9 by which the government is giving itself the right to establish contribution rates, I think there is a problem and the government should do something right now to convince us not to vote against Bill C-2. Obviously the Bloc finds the bill totally unacceptable because of clause 9.

However we must go further. How can the government justify giving itself the right to set premium rates under clause 9? I believe the government does not see the full impact of that provision because there are relatively few social consensus building fora in Canada. We know that labour relations have been rather stormy in the past and still are today.

Our unionization rate is not as high as I would like it to be but it is still one of the highest in the western world. In Quebec, for example, it is about 40% while in Canada it is around 34%. A government must have a social relation vision in order to be able to make labour market partners accountable on a number of issues.

With workers and employers each having a representative the EI commission was a consensus building forum. It encouraged social dialogue. By eliminating that forum through clause 9 the government is directly depriving labour market partners of their responsibilities and giving itself the right to decide the contribution rate of a plan to which it is not giving a cent. By taking that responsibility away from partners on the labour market it contributes to creating, I would even say generating, a vision of confrontation in terms of labour relations. In that regard I think the federal government is not acting responsibly.

Instead of doing what everyone is trying to do now in the western world, that is creating forums for social dialogue, it is eliminating one by giving itself the right to set the premium rates. I think that the approach taken in clause 9 goes beyond, and far beyond, the issue of employment insurance, even though that is already unacceptable. It goes to show that the government has no vision as far as the development of social relations within our society is concerned.

In that regard I urge the government to accept the amendment we brought in to delete clause 9 so that we can vote for Bill C-2, although we are aware that the legislation does not resolve the problems I have pointed out concerning admissibility. I hope this can be addressed after the committee tables its report in early June.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak today in the House to Bill C-2 and, in particular, to the amendment.

I would first like to pay tribute to the incredible amount of work that has taken place to bring the bill to where it is today, limited as it is.

I along with many of my colleagues were elected in 1997. From day one of being elected to parliament, members of the New Democratic Party took up the issue of the discrimination and unfairness in the Employment Insurance Act which was brought in 1996. In particular, our spokesperson on unemployment insurance, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, has taken this issue up with an absolute passion and is an advocate for the unemployed men and women in this country. It is the work of that member and of other members in the opposition that has forced this issue on to the political agenda. It is quite ironic to see the amount of effort that was needed to force the government to bring forward even the very limited changes that are before us today in Bill C-2.

In looking over the bill and the amendments, there is no question that if the bill is approved in its present form it would still act as a discriminatory piece of legislation and hurt those members of society who need the most protection and support.

A glaring contradiction to the bill are the statements the government side has made in the House professing to be concerned about the increase in child poverty. I remember the unanimous resolution that was approved by the House in 1989, moved by the then leader of the NDP, Mr. Ed Broadbent, calling for the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000. It was a noble goal. Not only have we not reached that goal, we have fallen further behind. We now have more children living in poverty as a result of public policies. One of those public policies is what has taken place with employment insurance.

My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre spoke very eloquently on how the bill historically, and even today, would have a very negative impact on women. When we look at the provisions of the bill we realize that even though women pay into employment insurance they will not qualify.

On the one hand, with great respect, we have come to this point only because of the absolute determination of members in our party and other parties to bring this forward. On the other hand, it is with a note of frustration and anxiety when I see that the bill still does not fundamentally address the inequities that exist within the system.

As the member for Winnipeg North Centre noted earlier, if the bill had come forward with a gender based analysis, as the government side said that it would, we would not be debating the bill in its current form today.

I am concerned that the provisions before us today will not help part time workers. They will not help women and they will not help all new parents. One of the positive things about the bill is that it does provide new provisions for new parents, but not all new parents will qualify.

I can tell members, and I am sure it is true for other members of the House, about the phone calls I am getting in my constituency office in Vancouver East from people who are desperate for support for their families.

My constituents hear about the debate in the House of Commons. They look with a sense of hope that some changes could be coming to provide them with some relief to pay the rent, to put food on the table, and to have bus fare to go to school and to go to various activities in the community. Constituents phone and ask whether the bill would help them, whether they would qualify for employment insurance.

Reading the fine print we find that there are still huge numbers of people, particularly women, part time workers and seasonal workers, who will be left behind.

The New Democratic Party is concerned that Bill C-2, the employment insurance bill, further entrenches growing inequality. Members have an opportunity to recognize that the moneys that flow into the fund come from the workers of Canada. We have a financial, social and political responsibility to make sure that unemployed workers, parents who are seeking re-entry into the workforce and members of our society are protected.

We have a responsibility to ensure that they are treated with fairness and that they are not penalized by clawback measures which still exist in the current bill. Unfortunately that is not the case. The changes in the bill are so limited that the number of people who would be affected is very small.

The New Democratic Party and I know we are joined by other members who understand that the political process is determined and resolved in its efforts to make sure the issue stays at the top of the political agenda. It is about fairness and equality. It is about recognizing how women have been discriminated against.

We believe in the charter of rights and in equality. We believe that when workers pay into a fund they have a right to income security when they are either unemployed, laid off or seasonal workers. New parents should have access to parental leave. They have a right to a certain level of comfort and security.

We will continue to work very hard to make sure that the amendments before us today that deal with some of the worst aspects of the bill and try to improve it are passed. There is no question that a much more indepth analysis is required on the whole question of employment insurance.

I urge all members of the House to support the amendments before us today that deal with some of the problems in the bill. It must not stop there. It is only one small step. We must be committed to ensuring there are further changes to the system to end discrimination against unemployed people and women. We must accept a very basic premise that unemployed people in Canada have a right to access their own insurance funds.

One of the worst scandals is how the fund has been raided over the years by the Government of Canada. Thirty-five billion dollars has been taken in tax cuts to balance the books. That does not help poor people. In any other instance this would be a completely intolerable situation, yet it has been allowed to happen here.

It is so shameful that we see people desperately trying to keep a roof over their heads, to pay bills every month, and to have their kids go to school. Yet these billions of dollars have been accumulated in the surplus fund and the money will not go to the people who most desperately need it. There is no other example that is as outrageous, as discriminatory and as unfair as this one.

We on this side of the House and in this party will continue to fight what appears to be the agenda of the government, to ensure that unemployed people do not get what they deserve. We want to make sure they have full access to income security and are treated with fairness and without discrimination.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak during report stage of Bill C-2 and in particular to address my remarks to the amendments the House is now dealing with.

The perspective I bring to the Chamber this afternoon is one of equality for women and parents. In my view if one addressed and analyzed the bill from the point of view of gender fairness and non-discrimination it would fail the test.

I have, as do I think many others in the House, a question for the government. Was a gender analysis done for the bill? Were the concerns of Canadians about the discriminatory features of the existing Employment Insurance Act addressed in preparation for Bill C-2?

It would seem that on every count and in every instance the government has failed to address those concerns and has perpetuated the enormous inequalities and discriminatory features of the act and of the legislation before us.

We have raised before in the House our concerns about the changes introduced by the government in 1997. We have raised the concern that the government has taken important revenue away from workers and unemployed Canadians to deal with its preoccupation of balancing the budget and addressing the debt and deficit.

We had hoped, in this time of surplus and given the intentions of the government to redress its previous mistakes, that the bill would be a step forward. Unfortunately that is not the case.

It is a particularly sad day for us to be here addressing the bill when at this very moment and as we speak a charter challenge is being heard in the courts. It is a charter challenge that could have been avoided had the government put its money where its mouth was. If it had adhered to and respected its own rhetoric the challenge would not be before the courts today.

The witnesses and testimonies for the charter challenge were heard on February 19. It is expected that we will soon hear the results of the challenge. All expectations are that it will be successful and that the government will need to deal with the situation. It will need to deal with its neglect in terms of equality for women, part time workers and parents.

I acknowledge the work and contribution to the country by the Community Unemployed Help Centre of Winnipeg, which has taken up the challenge and supported a woman by the name of Kelly Lesiuk in her charter challenge.

Following the 1997 changes, the Community Unemployed Help Centre of Winnipeg surveyed organizations and individuals to determine how the act might be improved. It heard very clearly from participants that the present act was having a profound effect on workers with the most tenuous attachment to the labour force, including part time workers, new entrants and re-entrants.

The people who responded to the survey felt that unless the government addressed those concerns a charter challenge was perfectly in order and that there was incredible merit for such a case.

Kelly Lesiuk, a part time nurse from Winnipeg, came forward with her situation. I will describe her case briefly so members can see how the act and the bill before us fail to address a fundamental right and freedom in our society.

Kelly Lesiuk worked part time for five years while also raising a child. When Kelly's husband found alternate employment in Winnipeg the family moved from Brandon, Manitoba and were faced with a difficult situation. Kelly was five months pregnant with her second child. She applied for employment insurance in Winnipeg. It was her justifiable expectation to obtain regular EI benefits while seeking employment. She expected that when she was no longer able to work she could switch her claim to maternity and then to parental benefit.

Needless to say, the Lesiuks were shocked to find that Kelly failed to qualify for benefits because she had fallen 33 hours short of the 700 hours required at the time of her application. As Kelly said in an interview in the spring of 1999:

To make it through, we've had to deplete our savings, RRSPs, max out our credit cards and borrow money. I have had to return to work just six weeks after having my baby boy by cesarean section. The safety net that we felt was there for us was not.

Kelly is not alone in the situation she experienced. Hundreds of other women, part time workers and parents are in similar situations. Some 60 other cases based on similar circumstances are waiting to be heard pending the final word on the charter challenge.

It is a shame that women like Kelly must go through such a lengthy legal process. It is a shame that when the government had an opportunity to act so many other women are left waiting to hear how things will unfold.

We are dealing with a failure on the part of the government to address a systemic problem. The government and society must recognize that today women represent 70% of part time workers. That means they bear a disproportionate negative impact under the government's approach to employment insurance. They are the hardest hit by the Liberals' rules on employment insurance.

To drive home the point, let us remember that seven out of ten unemployed women have no access to benefits. Let us also remind ourselves that only 15% of young women now qualify for employment insurance. Finally, let us recognize that only half of women who give birth receive maternity benefits under existing EI rules. This is because so many women are in part time, temporary or on call contracts that the government cannot meet the requirements.

It would have been very important for the government at this opportune moment to address those concerns and bring forward appropriate amendments to ensure there is no discriminatory impact on women in our society today. For goodness' sake, we are in the year 2001.

For some 30 years women and women's movements across Canada have been fighting for legislation that has no gender bias. They have been fighting for pay equity, recognition under employment insurance rules and fair treatment with respect to pensions.

Women have asked the government over and over again to ensure that every law is looked at from the point of view of its impact on women and that every proposal before the House comes with a gender based analysis. There could not have been a gender based analysis with respect to this bill, or we would not be here today talking about its impact on women. It is a matter of acting on the facts.

In conclusion, the government has talked a lot about equality and about redressing the problems it created through its changes to the Employment Insurance Act in 1997. This is the moment and the opportune time to make those changes.

We have a bill before us that could correct both problems and ensure that women, particularly women who work part time and women who continue to have the primary responsibility for the raising of children, are not discriminated against by actions of the government. That is the fair, the just and the right thing to do.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the bill before us today.

Let me begin by saying that in my opinion the employment insurance issue has evolved somewhat, but in a negative way. Let me explain.

There was a time when the federal government contributed to the employment insurance fund, then called the unemployment insurance fund, to the tune of about 25%. Of course the rest of the money came from employers and workers. All of a sudden in the 1980s, the government said “We will no longer contribute to the employment insurance fund. We will no longer put in our 25%. From now on all the money will come from employers and workers”.

A number of economic and financial studies have shown that our businesses have since lost a degree of competitivity, because they must make greater contributions to the employment insurance fund.

That decision has been a costly one. At the same time that the government was withdrawing from the plan in the 1980s a number of bills were introduced to make it harder for people to qualify for benefits. Before these changes seven or eight people in ten who would lose their jobs would qualify for EI benefits, compared to only four now.

The federal government is putting less money into the fund. In fact, it is not putting any and it is tightening eligibility rules and a whole set of other rules, which my colleague described very well. These will, if I understand correctly, be raised before the House on June 1, 2001, when the standing committee tables a report.

The rules were tightened and made stricter. The government withdrew and contributed less money while at the same time wanting more control. Hon. members will tell me there is nothing new about that. That is more or less what the federal government has been doing for several years. It wants to contribute less and less but to centralize more and more.

This has had repercussions. In my riding of Saint-Jean a PSAC survey has shown clearly that Saint-Jean was losing $21 million yearly because of all the restrictions relating to employment insurance: restrictions on eligibility, on the number of weeks, on what the federal government contributes. Saint-Jean has received $21 million less than it did under the generous, previous plan.

Saint-Jean is not alone. In all ridings of Quebec and all ridings of Canada similar things have been happening. As a result, people losing their jobs have found themselves dependent on provincial welfare once they were no longer eligible for employment insurance.

I hardly need point out that Ottawa has also reduced the amounts earmarked for transfer payments to the provinces for health, education and social assistance. Thus the provinces are hit with exorbitantly heavy costs.

Why are we against this bill at the moment? It is because of clause 9. If the government agreed to delete clause 9 there would be no problem. Under the current legislation the premium rate is set by the Employment Insurance Commission on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance.

The bill before us goes further. The Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance will make their recommendations directly to the government. They will no longer have to go through the commission. As I was saying earlier, the government no longer contributes to the EI fund. This means that from now on there is a great risk that the decisions made by the department, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development in terms of setting the premium rate will be based on government needs.

A lot of people question the legitimacy of a fund like the one we now have, with a $6 to $7 billion a year surplus for a cumulative total of about $25 billion over the last few years, when that money is used for purposes other than the one for which it was intended, namely helping people who lose their jobs.

There is a major problem with clause 9 and we cannot agree to it. Many people have criticized this clause. In Quebec businesses and employers have spoken out against this because they have realized that they are now paying more without getting anything out of it, practically. They know that by paying more surpluses are building up in Ottawa and that part of what they are paying is used by the government to meet its own needs, which is not what the EI fund was designed to do.

Employees who pay premiums every week have come to the same conclusion. They are saying that it does not only provide a safety net for those who lose their jobs. They understand that with what the government is taking out of the fund it can pay back its debts or inject money in its daily operations.

There is a big problem. If the government could come to terms with this issue and say that it will forget about clause 9 and leave it up the commission to set the rate, then it could have the support of the Bloc Quebecois. Until it change its mind, it will have to do without our support.

I also want to commend our colleague for making a list of very specific items that are not in the bill but that will eventually have be considered. Let me review some of them. There is the elimination of the waiting period, which is very important to us. During the 1998 ice storm in my riding of Saint-Jean people who had paid EI premiums all their lives and were laid off when their employers had to close shop because they were out of power were told “You have to wait two weeks”. I thought that was too much. These people had been paying in all their lives and needed these benefits, but the federal government had found a way to turn them down.

The way I see it, it is not an employee's fault when there are no longer any jobs. Employment insurance is a safety net. The only purpose I can see for the government in a waiting period is to ensure a supply of additional funds or fewer expenditures.

It is the same with the creation of older workers' benefits. Since the government wrapped up the POWA program, which was designed to help older workers, we have had terrible problems in our ridings. People regularly come to my office telling me “Listen, I am 55 or 58, and I swear to you that when I apply for work people look at me in an odd way and I never get an interview”. This is only normal. Employers are going to select from a much younger pool. They feel that even though older workers have accumulated a lot of experience, they will not be with the company as long. They do not tell them “We are not going to hire you”. They say “We are sorry, but we have selected someone else. We are not able to hire you, but we will keep your name on file”.

Be that as it may, these people are unable to find another job, and this causes a problem. This is one of the things that must be looked at a little later on, I imagine, when the standing committee submits its report on June 1. For now, there are a whole series of issues that have not been resolved. One of these is the benefit rate. It is now 55% instead of the 60% it used to be.

This is part of what I was saying earlier, that the government has tightened and tightened in order to go on increasing its surpluses for its own needs. This is something that is difficult to accept.

I appeal to the government's sense of reason. If it wants the support of the Bloc Quebecois, all it has to do is delete clause 9 and arrange things so that the commission, which sets premium rates on the recommendation of the two ministers, is maintained, so that it at least avoids the appearance of the government wanting to help itself to the fund.

If the government withdraws clause 9 the Bloc Quebecois would be pleased to support Bill C-2.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak about Bill C-2 and the whole employment insurance saga.

We know that the reforms in the employment insurance program have made victims and that some people cannot collect insurance benefits any more when they loose their job.

Today we are asking for real action. We are asking for a real reform that will give more people access to employment insurance. Six people in ten are currently excluded. Such an insurance should allow any worker who loses his or her job to collect employment insurance benefits, but it is not the case any more since the 1996 reform of the employment insurance program.

Some changes were introduced through various bills, including Bill C-44 which only brought minor improvements. I cannot understand how the government could not respond to people's expectations. Our committee had several meetings to look at a real indepth reform of the employment insurance bill. We have heard groups that were very representative of the population.

The Bloc Quebecois went on a few fact finding tours to try and understand what was happening in the various areas, what impact this unfair and unwarranted reform was having. It has already hurt many, people who could not find work in time to go back to work within a reasonable time frame. We were talking about the spring gap. Many seasonal workers do not qualify for EI because their insurable period has been shortened.

Before the elections they were talking about true employment insurance reform, but now they are back with Bill C-2. It does not go far enough. It will hurt the unemployed without really overhauling the system.

Our critic on human resources development, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, has really worked hard in committee. He is very familiar with this issue. After listening to the concerns of the various witnesses, he came back with amendments to the overall Employment Insurance Act and asked the government to consider them.

About 60 organizations appeared before the committee to talk about the reality faced by the unemployed, by all those who lose their jobs and can no longer qualify. The legislation limits access to EI benefits. The Bloc Quebecois is bringing forward all the changes he has been asking for. The Bloc's concern is not new. This has been an issue for the Bloc ever since 1993, because we are very much aware of the hardship faced by the people who were discriminated against because they cannot qualify.

We can also talk about eliminating the waiting period, something that was set to target workers who were claiming UI benefits too often. They were not doing so out of malice but because they were unable to find work.

We know that the 1996 reform, which was unprecedented in this government, made it even harder for workers to qualify. Those who used EI too often were penalized and saw their benefit rate reduced by as much as 5%.

During those five years recipients could no longer get benefits at a rate of 55% of insurable earnings since they could lose up to 50% of their benefit rate.

Why are we calling for the establishment of a separate employment insurance fund? It is because what is happening right now is unacceptable. The government is dipping into the EI fund. It is doing it to eliminate the deficit, which makes it look like a government that has a lot of money to hand out in grants to friends of the party or in grants with no particular objective in terms of helping the unemployed.

We know there is $36 billion in the EI fund today. We could have a separate fund administered by those who contribute to it, namely workers and employers. That fund must be managed separately.

We are calling for an increase in insurable earnings from 55% to 60% to respond to the rising cost of living. Right now the rate is 55%. This increase is totally justified to give the unemployed slightly higher benefits to help them make ends meet while they look for a job.

We are requesting a change in the definition of the rate calculation period from 26 weeks to 52 weeks. At present, those who qualify are few and they have fewer weeks of insurable employment.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord keeps saying that we should be fair with the regions. Often workers in some areas depend on seasonal or unstable jobs. Twenty-six weeks is clearly not enough in a context where there may not be any jobs available.

Another serious change we would like to see is the insurability of independent workers through a voluntary plan. Had the reform of employment insurance been tailored to the needs of the labour market, an assessment of the impact on independent workers would have been made.

I also know, because I was told about it, that the cultural industry should have been taken into consideration Human resources people in the cultural industry have formed a coalition, asking for a pilot project for cultural workers. These are very often independent workers, with incomes at or below the poverty level. That is another aspect of the labour market which has not been taken into account.

We wanted to bring down to 300 hours the eligibility requirement for special benefits. In some areas those who want to take a maternal or parental leave with special benefits, or those who are sick, have to work more hours. They need 600 hours before they qualify for EI benefits.

We would like to bring that figure down to 300 hours. In some areas workers need 420 hours to be eligible. It is unacceptable that people who experience very special conditions cannot be treated just like other workers.

Concerning the increase in the duration of benefits I believe that if we do not take into account what is really going on in the field, some people will find themselves without any EI benefits and that their duration is too insignificant to meet their needs.

Harmonizing to 25% the earnings of all claimants before EI benefits are cut, this is a main theme of the Bloc Quebecois. Members can be assured that all the reforms asked for by the Bloc are shared by all the people who testified before the committee on human resources development and the status of people with disabilities.

Insurable yearly earnings must be indexed and raised to $41,500.

I think the government has a lot of work to do to correct this inequity going back to the 1996 reform, which resulted in several poverty level people having to apply for welfare. Finally, the provincial governments had to step in and take over the federal government's responsibility.