Bill C-269 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system)

This enactment makes a number of amendments to the Employment Insurance Act. Specifically, it
(a) reduces each qualifying period by 70 hours;
(b) increases the benefit period;
(c) increases the rate of weekly benefits to 60%;
(d) repeals the waiting period;
(e) eliminates the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length; and
(f) increases the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $41,500 and introduces an indexing formula.

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

Could we add in the report that through a coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives, Bill C-269--the 360 hours for the workers across the country--was not carried? Maybe we could add an amendment to that; maybe Liberals would agree with me.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel that one fact has radically changed things since the Speaker's decision on Bill C-269 specifically. At the time when the Speaker made that decision, the account was recognized as part of the CRF. Given the budget proposal and the creation of a separate account administered by a board, it seems to me that it is no longer the Speaker's place to decide whether it is admissible under the government's budget prerogatives. He can make a decision about the rules of procedure, but not about the administration of the CRF, since these amounts will no longer be administered from the CRF. My objective here is to tell you that as soon as the debate on this matter has taken place, that decision will have to be looked at quite differently.

Furthermore, we will not be able to support the amendment put forward by our colleague Mr. Savage. The merit of the amendment is to try to come to some common position before the House. We went through that exercise when we were studying Bill C-269. At that time, we agreed to request a reduction of 70 hours, in a real effort to come to a compromise. We realized that, really, the exercise was not about getting the figures to balance or anything like that, it was about deciding whether we had the will to improve employment insurance and whether, as a system, it required major changes. That is the question, Mr. Chair.

We also ask ourselves if it would not be worthwhile to use this opportunity to do away with regional disparities and inequities, using not a percentage unemployment rate, but rather the specific reality of people who lose their jobs. That reality is the same for mothers or fathers who have lost their jobs whether their region has an unemployment rate of 12% or 7%. They no longer have an income, but they still have the same family obligations every day. That is the situation that I urge our Liberal colleagues to consider. Has the time not finally come to take corrective action? Maybe the action is not major, but it may at least be right.

To date, the arguments that have been made to us have dealt with contributions to the account. The Conservatives have the right, given that it is the ideology they hold dear, to believe that taxes must be cut and fewer support services must be provided to the least fortunate in our society. The same principle applies to the employment insurance account. They want to target the premiums but not the benefits because they are not important; that is the law of the free market. If someone loses his job, it is no one's fault. The person has to deal with it and find another job. I am not going to get into a debate on that, but, as I am sure you know, there is no escaping the facts. The facts are that these people no longer have an income and they cannot go and work somewhere else because there is no work for them. Those are the facts and there is no changing them. What can be changed, however, is the way we support these people.

With all due respect to our Liberal Party colleagues, I remind them that when the time came to ask the Prime Minister to arrange for royal assent for Bill C-269, they stalled, they did not proceed. That was their right. They have changed their minds, I suppose. I do not know. Whatever the reason, we could not get to that stage. However, I remind them how we really tried to join forces in order to make the Conservatives change their position.

In all sincerity, I understand the Liberals' concern. They tell themselves that if they get back into power one day—and the way the Conservatives are carrying on at the moment days, it could happen—they do not want to be stuck with something that they cannot manage. But they can manage it, Mr. Chair. When people started slashing premiums, they were at $3.10 or $3.20, I believe. When we held hearings with our friend Mr. Cuzner, everyone said that a premium of around $2.20 was manageable. The only sour note on the other side was that employers said that they wanted to contribute the same as employees. That debate is always the same.

At the moment the premium drops below $1.80, it is not about premiums any more, it is about supporting people who have lost their jobs. We are now discussing one of the ways that will allow us to do away with regional discrimination. That mainly affects women and young people. We know what effect the percentage has from one region to another. Let us do something, Mr. Chair; after all, we are not talking about a large amount of money. We are talking about 320 hours, which means $200 million. In the worst case, according to the 2004 figures, it would be $390 million and that would affect 90,000 unemployed people. The money is in the account.

I am going to stop there, Mr. Chair. I am asking our Liberal friends to keep this measure specifically. With it, we can really begin to revive employment insurance.

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

Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about a minor difference, but about figures that are double the original ones quoted. Minor adjustments have doubled the figures, whereas the main component of the program comes down to two important measures, namely the 360-hour requirement and the best 12 weeks. I'm not saying that you did not do your job properly. I'm simply trying to wrap my head around the issue. I feel that we did a good job in 2004. It's easy to say today that we did a poor job in 2004. Yet, we did take our work seriously. Committee members spent several hundred hours on this task, which led to studies and produced these results.

Today, it's easy to say that all of this was done in haste in two days. If that were true, then we should have been informed at the time, when we made our recommendations based on the information supplied to us. We were never told that these figures might not be quite accurate. We were never told to take them with a grain of salt because the work was done quickly. So, we made some recommendations, a number of which were unanimously endorsed. The report's first eight recommendations were unanimous, while opinion was divided on those made on February 15.

Furthermore, people are acting as if nothing happened in the interim, when in fact several bills calling for either a full or partial reform were tabled by the opposition parties. The Bloc Québécois tabled two bills, namelyC-278 andC-269, both of which called for a complete overhaul of the program.

We cannot merely overlook the situation this morning, Mr. Chairman. Did we base on work over the past three or four years on erroneous information? If we did, then it's a very serious matter. Every time we debated one of the bills in committee, government officials were present. Each time, we used these figures. I'm very surprised to find that the figures quoted to us this morning are double the original estimates in both cases.

Having said that, we're being told that the bill is different from the recommendations. Then show me how it is different. I've looked at it and I've studied our recommendations, and they are virtually identical. When we debated the matter back then, we also examined how these recommendations might possibly interact.

I do not wish to belabour the point, but I am very surprised to hear this argument this morning.

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

When we looked at Bill C-269, we looked at the regional rates. A document that was put together a year ago indicates that the cost of establishing a uniform qualification requirement of 360 hours of insurable employment was about.... Oh, I'm sorry, this was based on a 2004 report, but the cost then would have been $390 million.

Is the difference between the $390 million and $665 million a little bit of inflation and perhaps also the special things?

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

Okay. I'll come back to this when I get a chance. Perhaps I won't.

The issue is that I believe we need to do something on the benefit side of EI. The question I asked Monsieur Godin in sincerity related to a number of things that we need to do. Bill C-269 was one that eliminated the two-week waiting period, the five-week black hole on the other end, and did a number of things. It increased the rate from 55% to 60%.

You can look at the benefit period. We had Bill C-278, which was a Mark Eyking bill, to extend sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. It was supported by both the Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, realizing people are living longer now and recovering from illness.

We have the arm's-length provision, the best 12 weeks, and hours worked. There are a number of things that we need to do on EI. I'm trying to come to terms with whether this bill, as it is, is entirely the best one.

Monsieur Céré mentioned some of the discussions that have happened. We are trying to figure that out; I don't think I have time to ask for a comment.

Thank you.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is the first time I've had a chance to sit on this committee. Allow me to welcome you. I'm also jumping from one thing to another, and I wish you a very happy Valentine's Day, to you and to our colleagues around this table.

I feel more comfortable with the human aspect of things and human resources. I represent a riding north of Montreal, Laurentides-Labelle. North of that riding, there's a small single industry RCM that has been hit hard by the forest crisis. Most of the sawmills are shut down, and 1,500 people have been laid off since January 2007.

I was also fortunate enough to sponsor a bill in the House, Bill C-269, which was designed to enhance and improve the employment insurance system and thus to enable more unemployed workers to qualify for benefits. What is unfortunate is that the bill died on the order paper because the Conservatives did not want to give it Royal Assent. That's very unfortunate. As you know, the Bloc Québécois fought a long battle to have Bill C-269 passed.

The second battle we are waging concerns the creation of an adjustment program for older workers. We're pressing the present government on this matter. If the program were in place, it would provide older workers with a bridge, from the moment they lose their jobs to retirement, through benefits that they could receive. This would enable a region like mine to retain a young and skilled labour force. Currently we're experiencing an exodus. Our young generation is leaving the region, and our population is very old. It's very hard to diversify an economy and to put other measures in place when you're experiencing an exodus such as this.

Can someone comment on that? Mr. Vincent, I'm listening.

Employment Insurance Act

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House is well aware that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, since we introduced it. I am referring, of course, to Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system).

This bill makes the following changes to the Employment Insurance Act. One, it reduces each qualifying period by 70 hours. Two, it increases the benefit period. Three, it increases the rate of weekly benefits to 60%. Four, it repeals the waiting period. Five, it eliminates the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with other at arm's length. Six, it increases the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $41,500 and introduces an indexing formula. Lastly, the bill enables self-employed persons to receive employment insurance.

In rejecting Bill C-269, the Conservatives are defying the will of this House, of workers, of Quebeckers and of all Canadians.

However, this is typical of how they do things. We are talking about the Conservative government that decided not to include opposition members in the Canadian delegation to the upcoming Bali conference. We are talking about the Conservative government that decided not so long ago to block the work of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which was working on something the government was not happy with. We are talking about the government that abolished the court challenges program, saying that it will not fund people who challenge its laws. We are talking about the Conservative government that changed the criteria of the women's program to prevent groups that defend women's rights from receiving funding. We are talking about the minority Conservative government—and I stress the word “minority”— that is doing everything it can to silence any form of opposition.

These Conservatives are not concerned about the living conditions of the unemployed, minorities and those who need help the most. They are only interested in the Americans, oil companies and big business. They do not care about the difficulties of older workers in the manufacturing and forestry sectors or the problems of women's groups. This is very sad. The Bloc Québécois will denounce this situation in order to bring this government back in line. This Conservative government lacks humanity. It is cold and heartless and the idea of it becoming a majority government one day is very frightening. We are going to do everything we can to make sure that does not happen.

Before the Conservatives formed the government, they supported the idea of an independent fund and wanted, as we do, to put an end to the plundering of the employment insurance fund. That money belongs to the unemployed and it is not to be used at the discretion of Canada's federal government to do whatever it wants. Those who contribute to it are not able to touch 100% of it, which is outrageous. The Conservatives agreed with us on this issue when they were in the opposition. Now that they are in power, there is no difference between a Conservative government and a Liberal government. It is six of one and a half dozen of the other.

Once in power, as I was saying, the Conservatives went back on their word, rejected our Bill C-357 on an independent fund and preferred to let the money that belongs to the unemployed accumulate in the coffers of the big banks. They are taking from the poor and giving to the rich. That is a very familiar story from medieval times: what we have here is the Sheriff of Nottingham's gang.

They are right here. Here they are, doing absolutely nothing to respond to this very scandalous situation.

Employment insurance is no longer an assistance program, but rather a hidden tax.

Under the Liberals, the employment insurance fund was used to balance the budget. Although the Conservatives voted in favour of an independent fund, the surpluses generated remain in the consolidated fund and are used for other purposes besides providing help to those who need it when they find themselves in the vulnerable position of having lost their jobs. They are most definitely entitled, since they paid into it.

The Auditor General's report of November 23, 2004, reported that the government continued to plunder the employment insurance fund, despite the will of parliamentarians—we keep doing the same thing—and that the powers of the Employment Insurance Commission, whose membership includes contributors, would apparently be suspended for yet another year—and that is still the case. How is it that a government, a political party, once in power, could become such a bully towards those who pay into a fund that should be theirs—it should belong to the workers—and that should not be used to serve the ideological ends of the party in power?

The Conservatives voted at second reading against the idea of improving the employment insurance system through Bill C-269 proposed by the Bloc Québécois, and that shows the true colours of this government.

The 2006 Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report indicates that 44.8% of the unemployed have access to the system even though 100% of them paid premiums. Not only did they pay into the fund, but so did the employers. The federal government did not contribute a single nickel and it does what it wants with this money. That is outrageous.

The Bloc Québécois tried to have the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities adopt a report in February 2005 on the reform of employment insurance and continues to call for its implementation.

The Bloc Québécois is speaking out again against the looting of the fund and proposes concrete action such as: creating an independent fund and employment insurance commission, making the government repay the misused funds, having the Employment Insurance Commission set the premiums, and improving the system's coverage for workers in vulnerable situations.

Over the past two years, the Bloc Québécois has worked tirelessly to improve the system.

Employment insurance contributions are currently being used as a tax, not a contribution. That is unacceptable. The Bloc Québécois believes that we must clear up this misunderstanding and return the system to its original purpose, which was to insure workers who lose their jobs, not to tax work.

We have to think of the different kinds of people who collect employment insurance. I am thinking of the workers in my riding, in the Gatineau region, in the greater Outaouais region. Right now, jobs are being lost in paper mills and in forestry. The Minister of Labour, who is from the Pontiac region, should understand these sectors. I understand the paper mill workers who suddenly find themselves jobless because of downsizing.

We do not have adequate programs to help older workers from these mills, especially if they live in the city, as is the case in my riding. We do not have specific programs to help them bridge the gap between their years of seniority and retirement, when retirement is just a few years away.

Right now, the government could not care less about workers in vulnerable sectors, such as manufacturing and forestry, not to mention Ontarians working in the auto sector and the economic slump they are about to face.

The government says that there are more jobs today and less unemployment. But look at how poorly the new jobs are paid compared to those that have been lost.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having some time to talk on behalf of rural Canada and rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Certainly this is of great concern to my riding.

I would like to start by illustrating the theme I will bring forward in this debate. That theme is seasonal employment. We on this side of the House support Bill C-269. We think it will do a substantial amount for people who have invested over the past decades in seasonal work.

In my own riding I would like to talk about seasonal work in the fishery, forestry, construction work and many other areas. I would also like to talk about some of the arguments put forward by the other side. I will go back to when this debate first started and the comments by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, which were echoed by my hon. colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook. They said that the evidence also shows that claimants in high unemployment regions rarely use more than 70% of the benefits. What they are doing is playing with the averages. There are people who slip through the cracks, especially those in seasonal work, and therein lies the problem.

The Conservatives keep using statistics on a national basis in saying that the job market is extremely hot right now. Yes, it is extremely hot in certain areas. I know that because it is not particularly hot in my area. Therefore, there is a huge amount of migration taking place. We call it outmigration from my riding to places farther west, such as Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and so on.

In coming up with certain amendments to the EI act illustrated in Bill C-269, we are giving some of the more vulnerable communities a chance to survive, a chance to make the effort to attract more investment, to be more diverse. That is why they look at this as something that is going to downplay the overall job market.

They are also saying that by doing this, they are picking on businesses by keeping rates at what they are, but we believe that this type of policy is a vanguard for local economic development in areas of higher unemployment. This is all about the pilot projects. I am glad my hon. colleague brought up the pilot projects, which the Liberals initiated back in 2003, but the Conservatives have yet to renew. The problem is that the deadline is approaching.

Let me give an example. Five weeks would be added at the end of a benefit period in areas of higher unemployment. Yes, my area is roughly around 20%. It hovers around that mark. In most cases it is a bit higher, depending on the community.

For those engaged in seasonal work, and the vast majority of them do engage in seasonal work, like the fishery, plant workers and people who work with particular crews in the fishery and forestry, this will add the five weeks at the end to allow them the increased benefit period to get them through what we call the black hole between the benefit period and when the season starts again. That program expires on December 9, which is not very far away, and yet we have not heard whether the government is going to renew it or not.

The other pilot program in areas of high unemployment such as my own deals with the best 14 weeks over the last 52. That allows people to claim the best weeks and get a higher benefit as a result.

There are a couple of other issues in this particular bill that interest me quite a bit. It increases the rate of weekly benefits to 60%. It also reduces the qualifying period by 70 hours, which we believe is just a modicum, a slight benefit, that will not really throw this program into disarray, like the government is pretending it will. It will not, but it will go a long way for the smaller communities with higher unemployment.

Interestingly enough, I am glad this debate came up today because tonight the Prime Minister will be in an area of high unemployment. There are beneficiaries of this pilot program in an area that exceeds 20% unemployment in the riding of Avalon. I hope it is put to the Prime Minister why he and his government and the member of Parliament for Avalon do not support Bill C-269 which means so much to the seasonal workers of that particular riding. I wish he were here to debate it; nonetheless, we will move on.

Here is another point about Bill C-269 that I think is a great idea. The bill eliminates the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm's length. This could go a long way toward benefiting smaller businesses in smaller communities. It becomes a family affair, a family endeavour, a family situation where they run the business and it allows them to collect EI at the same time. That helps to sustain communities. It is a good pilot project that allows employment to persevere in the smaller communities. It gives them a fighting chance. That is why I support that particular clause in Bill C-269.

Bill C-269 also increases the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $41,500 and introduces an indexing formula. This is also beneficial given the cost of living. Therefore, we support that as well.

I would encourage my hon. colleagues across the way to support the bill. We have received support from the majority of the members in this House, with the exception of course of the Conservative Party.

The government mentioned earlier about, I think it said, bringing it on the road, asking for consultation, taking it to the country. I would welcome that.

The government keeps talking about all the input it has received about premium rates from businesses across the country. I have no problem with a reduction in premium rates. However, the government never mentioned anything, not one iota, about receiving input or advice from the communities most affected.

What about the areas of higher unemployment? What about the areas that could greatly benefit from such small measures in Bill C-269? Yes, there are currently 19 private members' bills in the hopper. That alone should tell the government about how important it is for the most vulnerable communities.

This is about seasonal employment. This is about areas of high unemployment. It is about economic development. It is about sustaining our communities.

The migration patterns across this country for work are incredibly high. There is more migration now than we have ever seen in central Newfoundland and it is growing. I believe in my heart that if we go forward with only some of the provisions in this bill that allow workers the benefit of staying in their communities to help build their communities, the government could benefit greatly and our communities could benefit greatly.

Yes, there are 19 bills being discussed about EI reforms that provide greater benefits to seasonal workers. There is a reason. The demand is there in the most vulnerable of communities.

I would implore the government to stop abandoning the areas of higher unemployment. There are some key initiatives in Bill C-269 as well as other EI bills that will greatly benefit the country.

Again, I am disappointed the government does not support Bill C-269. I will always be in favour of greater initiatives for our most vulnerable communities in rural Canada, rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and for us as citizens dedicated to seasonal work.

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

Thank you very much. We listened. We made sure that happened. That has continued.

We have extended the EI transitional measures for two regions in Quebec and New Brunswick until we complete a national review of EI boundaries.

In addition, we have continued with three pilot projects currently under way in regions of high unemployment, those being the best 14 weeks project, the working while on claim pilot project, and the new entrant/re-entrant pilot project.

Our approach is broad based yet targeted. It is aimed at providing opportunities for all Canadians to participate in our healthy and growing economy.

The Advantage Canada plan has outlined the government's approach to moving forward. One key goal of the government is to create the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world.

We have already taken action on this plan by creating the apprenticeship incentives grant, by working to improve foreign credential recognition, and by launching the targeted initiative for older workers. These changes provide real value to Canadians and address the labour issues of the 21st century.

Advantage Canada is about giving people the tools to succeed in a knowledge economy. This is what Canadians want from their government. Canadians want to be active participants in the labour market and in their communities. To do this they need the right tools, but they also want to know that EI will be there when they need it. The current system achieves that balance and the proposals in the bill put that system in jeopardy.

There are strong policy and evidence based arguments to suggest that the proposed changes in Bill C-269 are not in line with the needs of today's labour market and the economy as a whole.

We believe that our holistic approach to the labour market and our specific targeting of measures within the existing EI program is the best avenue to follow.

To make the changes that the member for Laurentides—Labelle has put forward in this bill, we would need to conduct an exhaustive study. We would need evidence. We would need to hear from effective witnesses. We would need answers to many other important questions. For these reasons, we are unable to support the proposals in Bill C-269.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to get up and talk about Bill C-269 today, not so much for what the bill says, but just to talk about some of the things our government is doing and why we believe that Bill C-269 is not required at this time.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today at the third reading of Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act. I would also like to thank all my hon. colleagues in this House for their contributions on this very important issue.

I want to start by saying that this government is committed to providing opportunities for all Canadians to participate and succeed in Canada's growing economy.

The economy is booming. Canada's new government and the Minister of Finance have created the winning conditions so that more jobs, better wages and a brighter future can be delivered to all Canadians.

I want to point out for the sponsor of this bill, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, who I know feels this is a very important issue for her, her riding and Quebec, that in Quebec alone the employment growth so far this year has been above the national average at 2%, with the unemployment rate at its lowest point in 33 years at 6.9% in Quebec.

The figures for Canada on a whole are equally optimistic. During the first quarter of 2007, employment grew by an estimated 158,000 new jobs, more than 500,000 jobs since this government took power. Canada's unemployment rate fell to only 5.8% in October. The great news is that these new jobs are paying more. The average hourly wage rose by 6% between August 2006 and August 2007.

Despite these record employment statistics, the opposition has proposed fundamental and sweeping changes to the EI program. These changes include lower entrance requirements, large increases in the duration of benefits and increased benefit rates, changes that are simply not justified by these numbers.

It is estimated that these changes would have a combined cost to the EI program of $3.7 billion annually. The opposition has done this without providing the House or the HUMA committee any evidence to show that these changes are actually required or warranted.

The opposition spent a mere one hour studying this bill, an absolutely shocking amount of time to spend on a bill that proposes this level of spending of taxpayers' dollars. That amounts to more than $1 million per second of study for this bill. Although shocking, it is not surprising considering the opposition's record of proposing bills with billions of dollars in new spending with little or no study.

In addition, the opposition members on the HUMA committee refused to consult with business leaders and other stakeholders who will be affected most by these changes.

Michel Kelly-Gagnon, the president of the Conseil du patronat du Québec, stated that this additional $3.7 billion expenditure would return the EI system to a deficit and may result in higher premiums for both workers and employers. He further stated in no uncertain terms that these higher premiums are good for neither the working family nor business owners.

Certainly, one of the things I have heard as I have talked to business owners in my riding is that they would like to find a way for us to be able to cut EI premiums, not only for businesses but for individuals as well, so this bill would have us going in the opposite direction.

One would have thought that Mr. Kelly-Gagnon's opinion would have been of interest to the committee. However, the opposition decided that no employers should be consulted in the drafting, the debate or even the study of the bill. In fact, the opposition decided not to hear from any witnesses before committing to billions of dollars in new annual expenditures.

There are currently 19 bills at various stages before this House that propose changes to the EI program. The cost of these bills is expected to be well in excess of $11 billion annually. I think it is fair to say that some opposition members have proposed bills or advocate for changes to programs for political purposes without examining what the ramifications are for the taxpayer, without thorough study, and without an idea of what the true cost would be.

Another good example of this would be Bill C-257, which was handled in the same sort of fashion when we had the Bloc propose this bill as a private member's bill to issue sweeping changes to federal jurisdiction and federal legislation when it came to anti-replacement workers, when the Bloc suddenly had an interest in federal issues. I found it remarkably interesting that suddenly the Bloc had a new love for federal issues.

Once again, this was another bill that they tried to ram through committee. I can assure the House that if there had not been the time for thoughtful study on the bill and a chance to hear from witnesses, there would have been a problem that would have cost taxpayers millions in time as well as, probably, lost services.

Thankfully, we have a labour market in which more Canadians and certainly more Quebeckers are working than ever before, and the demand for labour is strong. We are at a great place in the economy. Opportunities are certainly abundant. We are currently experiencing labour shortages across the country. Certainly as we look to B.C., Alberta and Ontario, they are having a hard time not only with skilled labour but with unskilled labour as well.

Coupled with this strong labour market is evidence that the EI program is working well. It is meeting its objectives to help Canadian workers adjust to labour market changes.

I stated earlier that the evidence to support the proposed changes that Bill C-269 proposes was not presented at the HUMA committee. It was not presented because, I would have to say, it does not exist.

The evidence that does exist, though, indicates that the current EI program is meeting the needs of the unemployed Canadians for whom the program was intended. Eighty-three per cent of those who pay into the program and have a qualified job separation are eligible for benefits. This figure increases to over 90% in areas of high unemployment. Let me just repeat that fact again for those who may not be aware. For those who are in qualified job separations who are eligible for benefits, that figure is over 90% in areas of high unemployment. Those people are able to receive their EI benefits.

The evidence also indicates that both the amount and duration of EI benefits is meeting the needs of Canadians. On average, individuals use less than two-thirds of their EI entitlement before finding employment. Even in high unemployment regions, claimants rarely used more than 70% of their entitlement.

If all this evidence suggests that the current EI program is meeting the needs of individuals who use the program, why has the opposition proposed such wide, sweeping changes?

One of the EI program's chief goals is to encourage a return to the labour market. In other words, the program is designed to provide temporary income support while encouraging Canadians to seek and retain employment. We cannot and will not go back to the problems that existed with the EI under previous governments.

Our approach to EI reform will continue to be based on building on the strengths of Canada's economy and the growth in our labour market. That being said, Canada's new government has acted to make changes to the EI program where the evidence supports the need for change.

For example, our government has expanded the eligibility for compassionate care benefits, which is certainly something we heard about during the last campaign. It is something we have been able to put into place.

We have launched a pilot project to examine the effects of providing additional weeks of benefits for those in areas of high unemployment.

The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), be read the third time and passed.

Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007

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

Mr. Speaker, before my distinguished Liberal colleague leaves the House and before I begin my speech on the implementation of part of the March 2007 budget and the economic statement of October 30, 2007, I have a few words to say to him.

We sometimes hear the Conservatives ask us what the point of the opposition is, and tell us that it is only good for criticizing things.

However, the Liberals said the same thing when they were in power. They must now realize that it takes courage to be in opposition, at least enough courage to be able to vote. Votes are sometimes very significant. For example, the budget implementation vote is important. Yet, they did not have the courage to stand up.

This clearly tells the governing party to be very careful when it comes to how it views the role played by the opposition, a decisive role in a democracy.

The Bloc Québécois is against this bill to implement part of the March budget and the October economic statement. We will therefore rise and vote against this bill, because it does not meet the five conditions or priorities put forward by the Bloc Québécois. Once again, it underscores the Conservative bias for the oil and gas economy. Indeed, for them, everything revolves around the oil and gas companies.

Even though they say that their measures apply to all manufacturers and businesses, it is clear that only oil companies will really benefit. These tax breaks will save the oil companies over $520 million, while businesses in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, which are in crisis right now, will get nothing.

Other groups are being left to fend for themselves, including seniors who are being denied the guaranteed income supplement. Once again, there will be no guaranteed income supplement retroactivity, nor will there be any help for older workers. The economic statement ignored older people. It offered them nothing even though we know that the government owes them a lot of money, especially to the poorest of them who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. The amount of money they can receive is based on how low their income is.

This bill gives Nova Scotia and Newfoundland an unfair advantage because of their agreement with the Canadian government, and it cheats Quebec out of transfers and equalization payments. The government also ignored the environment, and we know why.

Let us examine each of these concerns. I will start with employment insurance. When we talk about helping manufacturing companies and businesses in general, we are also talking about measures to help workers. The previous Liberal member said that the NDP has a heart but no brain and that they, the Liberals, have a brain. What good is a brain without a heart?

The economic statement does not have a heart. One might think one has a brain if one subscribes to a particular philosophy or doctrine, but what good is that if the philosophy or doctrine does not include compassion and concern for those we need to look after because that is our calling and our duty? We have to look after human beings, the people we represent.

We know that unemployment is one of the most serious issues before us. Yet the previous government, even though it is now the opposition, is siding with the Conservatives to keep workers and the unemployed in a deplorable economic state.

The government is continuing to misappropriate money from the employment insurance fund, which has had a surplus of more than $54 billion over the past 12 years as a result of savings made by depriving people of benefits when they lose their jobs.

Employment insurance eligibility requirements have been tightened so much that the number of eligible individuals has been minimized. Only 42% of unemployed men and women qualify for employment insurance. I inadvertently said “unemployed men and women”. This is not entirely true. When you break down the figures, you see that only 32% of women who have lost their jobs qualify for benefits. This is quite dramatic and quite scandalous for a country that says it is fighting elsewhere for women's rights when here at home, it is depriving women of some of their rights. Similarly, only 17% of young people qualify for employment insurance.

One has to wonder where the surplus comes from. The answer is simple. If all the workers who lost their jobs received the benefits they were entitled to, there would be no surplus. One rule prevents people from receiving employment insurance benefits. The legislation refers to people who received too much money the previous time or who tried to get around the rules. These people represent between 10% and 12% of unemployed workers. Consequently, 88% of unemployed workers should ordinarily receive employment insurance benefits. Yet the actual figure is only half that, which is why there is a surplus.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill in each parliament. This time, we have introduced Bill C-269, which seeks to improve employment insurance eligibility requirements. For example, a person's best 12 weeks of work would be taken into account. The maximum benefit period would increase from 45 to 50 weeks. The eligibility threshold would be 360 hours, and the coverage rate would go up from 55% to 60%. All these measures would cost approximately $1.4 billion dollars at the current unemployment rate.

This amount is less than the sum that was taken, again this year, from the employment insurance fund surplus. What is happening? Why is the government not voting with us on Bill C-269? We will debate it again tomorrow in the second hour of third reading. We have asked the government to give the royal recommendation, in accordance with the Speaker's ruling. It is cabinet that must give that recommendation. The NDP has also requested it. We are still waiting for the Liberals to follow suit and for the government to respond to our request. Why? For the House of Commons to finally vote, in a fully democratic manner, on employment insurance reform. Much to our dismay, and to the dismay of the people concerned, there is no sign of this happening so far.

When the unemployed are denied their benefits, it is not just one person who is penalized. That individual's family is penalized as well. This prevents the region's economy and the province's economy from benefiting from the economic boost that comes from a person receiving employment insurance benefits.

In each of our ridings, year after year, at least $30 million is kept out of the riding's economy because people who lose their employment are denied their employment insurance benefits.

I call that an economic crime. We here in the House of Commons are accomplices in that crime. Those who do not vote are not supporting this bill.

I am again asking our Liberal friends, the official opposition in this House, to join us in calling on the Prime Minister of Canada to give the royal recommendation so that tomorrow, in the second hour of third reading, the Speaker can announce that there will be a vote and so that we can vote on this bill soon.

Not to do so would be an act of extreme cowardice toward people who have lost their employment. Not making a concerted effort to come and vote would be worse than remaining seated. It would show a lack of courage to the people who elected us.

There is another bill dealing with employment insurance. Incidentally, I salute our friends from the NDP, who have always remained steadfast with us regarding, among other things, the need for an analysis of the precarious situation of those who find themselves without employment, despite the fact that the oil economy is flourishing. We know, however, that it is on EPO, because every other sector is collapsing.

We have kept rising in this House again and again to speak up for those who have lost their jobs. For instance, we introduced Bill C-257, to establish an independent employment insurance account, thereby putting an end to the misappropriation of funds, and make sure that the account is managed by those who are paying into it, namely the employees and the employers, and that a majority of representatives of employees and employers compose the commission administering the account. Of course, these people equally representing employees and employers could be seconded by a chief actuary. The government would also be represented. Money should also be taken every year from wherever it was diverted to and put back into the account.

All that I am relaying to the House right now is not a figment of the imagination of the member for Chambly—Borduas. It stems from the work of a parliamentary committee, namely the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Social Development. The principle of an independent EI account has been unanimously accepted and recommended to the House of Commons by the members of that committee, that is to say representatives of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois. They were unanimous.

Yesterday, this bill was voted on at second reading stage so that it could simply be referred to committee, so that the committee could complete its work. To our surprise, and I would even say our dismay, the Liberal Party voted against. We are totally bewildered and we are trying to understand. How can that be? They were on board. What made them change their minds? Is it the same thing that kept them from standing up and voting on the budget? Is it cowardice? This is quite shocking.

Last night, I spoke with representatives of the main unions, the FTQ, the CSN and the CSQ, and unemployed workers' representatives. Everyone is dumbfounded by the Liberals' behaviour. They do not understand. They are dumbfounded. They were promised that the Liberals would vote like us. This morning, during the FTQ convention attended by nearly 4,000 people, there was a unanimous vote to give Bill C-269 royal recommendation.

There is something completely illogical, and I would even say illegitimate, about how votes are held here. Indeed, it is not representative of the will of the majority of the citizens of the country and, of course of Quebec, whom we represent.

I would like to revisit another concern of ours: social housing. What does it have for social housing? Nothing.

I would remind the House that the Liberal Party stopped all subsidies for social housing, as it is called in Quebec. At the federal level, it is called affordable housing. There were two programs, one provincial and one federal. The provinces, the federal government and the municipalities all worked together to develop social housing. However, from 1992 to 2001-02, not a single cent was put into it.

Yet, the established standard to ensure sufficient social housing to house low-income people states that there must be a housing vacancy rate of at least 3%. Many towns and cities do not even have that. In my riding, out of 12 municipalities, 10 are below that, five are below 1% and in one municipality, there is a 0% vacancy rate. What happens in such a situation? Naturally, this increases the cost of housing. This also causes people with low incomes to relocate. They move to towns or cities where there are slums, since slums are the only housing they can afford.

It makes no sense for 17% of people with low incomes to have to spend 80% of their income on housing alone. They only have 20% of a meagre income to feed and clothe themselves and to live on. It is unacceptable that, in Canada, which they say has a prosperous economy, people with low incomes are put in such a position.

What should be done? We must re-establish the rule we had in the early 1980s whereby about 1% of the national budget was allocated to social housing. That is what we are asking for in order to jump-start the construction of social housing, to provide more decent housing to low income citizens.

The fourth point I would like to discuss is how we treat our seniors. It is unbelievable that last spring's budget and the recent economic statement do not contain measures to correct the monumental injustice to seniors. They are owed more than $3 billion in retroactive benefits. That is not a gift.

These individuals with very low incomes were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. They were not informed about that. Heaven knows that individuals with a low income are, for the most part, very isolated, and not likely to be attuned to the communication networks that provide all this information. Seniors and aboriginals are some of these people. We could go sector by sector. For years, these people were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement.

What answers are we given today? They are always technical and evasive. In the past, the Liberal government played that game and nothing has changed with the present government.

A Quebec statesman said that a society is judged by how it treats its children and its seniors. I can say that the Conservative and the Liberal Parties will be judged harshly by history not only because of the horrible economic crime committed against seniors, but also because of the equally appalling injustice. These people are not asking for much; they are merely asking for their due.

I realize that my time is running out and therefore I will wrap it up. We, the Bloc Québécois, will definitely vote against this bill to implement the spring budget and the fall economic statement because this budget makes no provision for the most disadvantaged, making it unworthy of a so-called prosperous Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my hon. colleague from Outremont on his election, because we had not had the chance to do so. I think this was his first full speech in the House on a matter as important as this one.

A Liberal member just questioned him on the reinvestment in human capital. This concern is to the credit of the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois as well, because we are pretty consistent in that respect. The same can hardly be said of the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague from Outremont on the position taken yesterday on Bill C-357, providing for the establishment of an independent employment insurance account to ensure that only those paying into it—that is, employers and employees—be allowed to manage this account and that it no longer be used for other purposes. We know that $54 billion has been diverted from that account. The bill was designed to put an end to such misappropriation and ensure that the funds are managed in accordance with the account's mission, which is to pay out EI benefits.

Yesterday, both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against that bill. I would like to hear my colleague on that.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister has not mentioned lost jobs however. The Prime Minister said that it was immoral not to respect majority decisions of the House. Today, we are asking the government to improve the employment insurance program, as are all the opposition parties and all the delegates at the FTQ convention.

Will this minority government respect the parliamentary majority, which is speaking on behalf of workers, and give royal recommendation to Bill C-269?

This year alone, the employment insurance fund surplus stands at $1.5 billion. That is more than enough to take action.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform concerning the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement), standing in the name of the hon. member for Brampton West.

On October 18, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and Minister for Democratic Reform drew attention to the fact that Bill C-362 would increase old age pension security and guaranteed income supplement benefits by lowering the threshold for residency requirement from the current 10 years to three years, thus resulting in significant new expenditures for the government.

The hon. parliamentary secretary argued that precedents clearly establish that bills which create new expenditures for benefits by modifying eligibility criteria or changing the terms of a program require a royal recommendation.

In support of this view, he cited rulings on Bills C-265, C-278, C-284 and C-269 from the previous session.

I would like to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and Minister for Democratic Reform for having raised this issue.

The Chair has examined Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement), to determine whether its provisions would require a royal recommendation and thus prevent the Chair from putting the question at third reading.

As has been pointed out, Bill C-362 amends the Old Age Security Act to reduce from 10 years to three years the residency requirement for entitlements to a monthly pension.

The parallel made by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and Minister for Democratic Reform between Bills C-362 and Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), is a pertinent one.

Although Bill C-269 contains several elements that involve new expenditures, one particular element sought, much like the provisions of Bill C-362, to reduce the qualifying period for benefits.

As the Chair pointed out on November 6, 2006, in a ruling on Bill C-269, “...all of these elements [contained in the bill] would indeed require expenditures from the EI Account which are not currently authorized”.

It went on to say, “Such increased spending is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation”.

By reducing from 10 years to three years the residency requirement for entitlements to a monthly pension under the old age security act, Bill C-362 would reduce the requirements currently authorized for payment of benefits. In doing so, the bill would authorize an inevitable increase in the amount of expenditure of public funds and therefore requires a royal recommendation.

Consequently, I will decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received; however, the debate is currently on the motion for second reading, and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Laval.