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.

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

Bill C-269 includes a provision that would allow those who are self-employed to voluntarily contribute to the EI plan with the creation of a system for that purpose.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I'd like to thank you for being here today. Thanks as well for your presentations, which will no doubt further enlighten us .

I'd like to go back to the question of the employment insurance system. In my opinion, in its current state, it is a discriminatory system, particularly against women. Furthermore, the system is funded only by employees and employers, and the government doesn't pay a cent into it.

During this Parliament, I had the opportunity to introduce a bill designed to improve the employment insurance system. It is at the third reading stage, and it would be very desirable if it could receive the approval of all members in the House so that this system is improved and better suited to the needs and situation of workers today.

The whole thing depends on what the government wants. I'm from a region north of Montreal where a lot of women are at the mercy of seasonal work. It's often not by choice, or, if it is, there's only that kind of work that they can do.

I'm going to tell you about the amendments currently provided for in Bill C-269, because, among other things, they are further to the recommendations appearing in your brief, Ms. Harris.

For example, we recommend that the qualifying period be reduced to 360 hours of work; that the benefit period, which is generally 45 weeks long, be increased to 50 weeks; that the weekly benefit rate be raised to 60%, which is one of your recommendations; that the two-week waiting period be repealed; that the distinction between individuals who are entering the labour force for the first time and those who are returning be eliminated; that maximum annual insurable earnings be increased; that the benefit be calculated on the basis of the average of the 12 highest paid weeks worked during the year; and, lastly, that self-employed workers be able to access the employment insurance system on a voluntary basis.

I'd like to hear what you have to say on the importance of passing this bill during this Parliament. In my opinion, that would be consistent with the expectations and situations of women, youths and also men.

Bill C-269 and Bill C-278

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair would like to take a moment to provide some information to the House regarding Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), standing in the name of the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle, and regarding Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine), standing in the name of the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.

Both bills were reported to the House from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on March 19, 2007.

With regard to C-269, many hon. members may recall that on November 6, 2006 I delivered a ruling in response to a point of order concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for this bill. At that time, I came to the conclusion that spending was being sought for initiatives that: reduced the qualifying period for benefits; increased the weekly benefit rate; repealed the waiting period for benefits; increased the yearly maximum insurable earnings; and extended coverage of the Employment Insurance Plan to the self-employed.

In addition, I mentioned that the bill summary listed three further ends which appeared to involve other increases to expenditures.

The standing committee made an amendment to clause 5 which dealt with qualification requirements and to the schedule which dealt with the weeks of benefits. Neither of these amendments removed the requirement that C-269 be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Therefore, I will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-269 in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

With regard to Bill C-278, in a ruling delivered on November 10, 2006, in response to a point of order on the need for a royal recommendation, I stated:

I have carefully reviewed Bill C-278 in light of the interventions of the hon. members and find that by amending the Employment Insurance Act to extend sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks, the bill would require the expenditure of additional funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized. Although contributions to the employment insurance program are indeed made by employers and employees, appropriations for the program are taken from the consolidated revenue fund and any increase in such spending would require a royal recommendation.

As the standing committee did not make any amendments to the bill, I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-278 in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

I thank the House for permitting me to make this announcement.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill to improve employment insurance is compromised because the government refuses to give a royal recommendation.

Will the government listen to the arguments of the union leaders, workers and unemployed who have gathered on Parliament Hill today to ask that it remove the final obstacle to the adoption of Bill C-269 by giving a royal recommendation?

Hazardous Materials Information Review Act

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will speak about Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. This bill originated in the Senate and had already been tabled. It was formerly called Bill S-40. It has been renumbered and is now S-2.

This bill aims to improve the current process of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, and it has three main objectives.

The first objective is to allow companies that want to be exempted from the general rules concerning the listing of hazardous ingredients to make a declaration that information in respect of which an exemption is claimed is confidential business information, and that information substantiating the claim will be provided on request, rather than de facto providing all information.

The second objective is to allow companies to voluntarily give an undertaking to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission to modify and to bring a material safety data sheet or a label of products containing hazardous ingredients into compliance with the provisions of the Hazardous Products Act or of the Canada Labour Code.

The third objective is to allow the limited participation of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission before an appeal board.

The Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, or WHMIS, combines an assortment of legislation, regulations and procedures whose objective is to protect workers by preventing illness and injury that could result from the use of certain hazardous chemicals in the workplace.

Quebec, the provinces and the federal government are all part of WHMIS.

Under WHMIS, manufacturers and distributors of controlled (hazardous) products must provide information on the health and safety risks associated with their products, together with instructions for safe handling, storage, transportation, disposal and first-aid treatment. This information is conveyed by the product’s mandatory Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and label—

Each product's MSDS must include a number of elements. It must list all hazardous ingredients in the product, its toxicological properties, and the precautions one must take when using the product. The MSDS must also indicate the necessary first aid measures for anyone exposed to a product.

When the indications that must appear on the MSDS involve trade secrets—and this is where the problems begin—and disclosure of these secrets could have serious consequences, a mechanism is in place to, on one hand, assess the pertinence of not disclosing all the information and, on the other hand, ensure that workers' rights are protected. Therein lies the conflict between trade secrets and workers' rights. The mechanism in question is the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.

This commission was formed in 1987 and consists of quite a few people. That is the beauty of the commission, which has about 18 people on it. There are automatically two representatives of worker interests, one representative of suppliers, one employer representative, one representative of the federal government, and various representatives of the provincial and territorial governments for a total of about 18 people, who form a review committee.

Simply put, the commission’s mandate is to “help safeguard both workers and trade secrets in Canada’s chemical industry”. So when a company wants an exemption from its general obligations in order to safeguard confidential business information—this could be the identity or concentration of a hazardous ingredient in one of its products—it must apply to the commission for an exemption. The claim is registered and it is up to the commission to decide whether an exemption is called for.

The commission’s mandate may also cover evaluating whether certain data sheets and hazardous product labels are in conformance.

There are certain problems with the current legislation. It mandates the council to make recommendations to the health minister on the methods for reviewing claims, the appeal procedures, and the fees to make a claim.

In November 2002, the council officially and unanimously recommended the amendments in the current Bill S-2 to the health minister at the time.

There are three kinds of problems: the complexity of the economic information, the lack of a voluntary process for correcting the data sheets, and finally the lack of flexibility in the exchange of information between the commission and the independent boards in the appeal process.

That is why the bill proposes three amendments. The first amendment in clauses 1, 2 and 8 proposes a change to the obligations in section 11(4) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act in order to specify that when companies claim an exemption, they do not need to provide all the documentation previously required. This is intended to reduce the complexity of the claims, especially when the information does not really help the commission very much in judging the economic aspects of the claims.

Under the current process, companies claiming an exemption must submit detailed information on what they have done to safeguard the confidentiality of the ingredients used to manufacture their product and on the financial impact of the possible disclosure of this information.

In her testimony given to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology in 2006, Sharon Watts, vice-president of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, specified in which cases the commission would require full documentation.

The commission will require full documentation to support a claim for exemption from disclosure when an affected party challenges a claim or when a claim is selected through a verification scheme that we will set up to discourage false or frivolous claims

The second change is proposed at clauses 3 and 4 of the bill which amend sections 16 and 17 of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act in order to establish a new mechanism for the voluntary revision of material safety data sheets by the companies. With this new mechanism, when a company files a claim for exemption, a screening officer may “send an undertaking to the claimant setting out the measures that are required to be taken for the purpose of ensuring compliance” with those provisions governing dangerous goods contained in the Hazardous Products Act and the Canada Labour Code.

The purpose of this second change is twofold: to ensure that changes to material safety data sheets and labels are made more quickly and that companies acting in good faith will not be issued an order by the HMIRC, as this could be misleading about their willingness to comply.

In comparison, current legislation requires the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission to issue a formal order for compliance, even if the company seeking an exemption is prepared to comply and to make the necessary corrections after having been notified.

The legislation also provides for a rather strict and time-consuming process. Thus, where non-compliance is found, an order is issued to the company seeking an exemption. This order is then published in the Canada Gazette and it does not become binding until 75 days after its publication. Other time limits are specified in the event that the company decides to appeal the order, or to allow the company to comply with the order and submit a new data sheet.

Finally, the existing rules would still allow orders to be issued to uncooperative companies in case of non-compliance with the rules and in the absence of a voluntary undertaking.

The third amendment proposed in Bill S-2 is contained in clause 7 of the bill, which amends the former section 23 of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, to enable the commission to provide clarification in respect of an appeal that has been submitted to an appeal board. Clause 8 amends section 48 of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to permit the making of regulations “respecting the participation of the Commission in an appeal heard before an appeal board”.

According to representatives of the commission, the third amendment seeks “to improve our appeals process by allowing the commission, at the request of an appeal board, to provide factual clarification of the record to appeal boards, when needed to facilitate the process. Appeals are heard by independent boards with three members drawn from labour, industry and government. The government member acts as chair of the board. Most appeals heard to date would have benefited from additional explanatory information from the commission, but this is not permitted under our legislation”.

In short, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-2. The Bloc believes that when it comes to hazardous materials, it is vital to keep in mind worker safety and to base all decisions on that imperative.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that the amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act contained in Bill S-2 were unanimously approved by the members of the HMIRC council of governors.

The Bloc, therefore, supports Bill S-2 so that the amendments called for by the principal stakeholders in this kind of workplace can be adopted.

In all its actions, the Bloc seeks to protect the interests of workers. That is why we tabled Bill C-257, which, unfortunately, died on the Order Paper; a bill dealing with preventive withdrawal would have enabled pregnant Quebec workers in companies operating under federal jurisdiction to receive the same benefits as Quebec workers—another bill that died on the Order Paper; and Bill C-269 to improve the employment insurance system.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, our societies' greatest strength, the driving force behind our economies and the factor that sets them apart, is the human capital we can rely on. This driving force is varied, dynamic and rich. We have a wealth of people whose abilities are maximized by the favourable environment we can foster and even shape thanks to the concerted contributions of individuals. When I think of the human capital we have here, I see business leaders who are tuned into small shifts and global trends and who adapt their strategies and develop the kind of clear vision that enables them to seize opportunities and use those opportunities to advance all of our communities. I think of researchers who apply their advanced knowledge to their ongoing search for better and newer ideas, thus enabling all of our fellow humans to live a better life and to dream of always living a better life. I remember whose who, every morning, leave their homes to do a job that we ask them to dedicate themselves to, and make the most of their skills to do better. These people, who do their very best every day, are the ones who enable us, as a community, to aspire to a better life.

That is why I am so pleased to rise in this House to address the Senate's Bill S-2, an Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act. Needless to say, my party supports the principle underlying this bill because its reason for being is quality of life. Indeed, the Bloc Québécois believes that when it comes to hazardous materials, it is vital to keep in mind worker safety and to base all decisions on that imperative.

Mr. Speaker, you are probably not surprised to hear me say that. The members of the Bloc Québécois feel a profound desire to respect, listen to and protect workers, and we have intervened on many occasions in this House, as well as in the various ridings in Quebec and across Canada, to ensure that the rights of workers are respected.

Thus, for the benefit of my colleagues and our viewers, I would like to remind the House about a number of bills we have brought forward and defended in recent years, always driven by this desire to serve our fellow citizens and defend their interests.

First of all, I would like to mention Bill C-257, to ban the use of replacement workers in businesses under federal jurisdiction. Had it not been for the mysterious flip-flop by the current leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, this bill would have passed the report stage by now.

Members may recall that, when the Liberal Party leadership race was in full swing, my colleagues, the hon. member for Gatineau and the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, had obtained the consent of a majority of the members of this House, thus allowing the bill to pass second reading and be referred to committee. As demonstrated by this favourable vote at second reading, a majority of my colleagues are in favour of the underlying principle of this bill. Therefore, I am thoroughly convinced that we will see the fruits of this important contribution from Bloc Québécois in the very near future. Perseverance and hard work are our trademark, as you know.

Additionally, looking at the Order Paper, we see a bill concerning preventive withdrawal, the purpose of which is to provide pregnant women in Quebec who work in companies under federal jurisdiction with the same benefits of preventive withdrawal as other working women in Quebec. This is a matter of fairness.

The purpose of this bill is to allow these workers to make better choices for their families by having the same options similar workers already have.

There is also Bill C-269 to improve the employment insurance system. It is disgusting that the Government of Canada—whether Liberal or Conservative, it makes no difference—is as stingy as it is when it comes to this insurance program. The government does not inject anything into this program, not a dollar, not one red cent, but it collects surpluses from the contributions paid by the employers, who earn profits on their investment, and by the employees, who earn salaries from their hard work.

I would also quickly like to talk about how the Bloc Québécois has been fighting on behalf of workers aged 55, 60, or 63, who are victims of the mass layoffs that have been plaguing Quebec for the past few years, in order that these workers can reach retirement with dignity.

Including an income support program for older workers in the last throne speech, following pressure from my colleagues and me, is the start of recognizing that these workers deserve respect and, I would hope, the beginning of the end of a crazy idea held by certain Conservative ministers. According to them, it is easy for a 56-year-old worker with very little education who has worked with his hands his whole life, to go back to school to receive training in order to work in another area of activity until he is 65. Providing one-size-fits-all training is a big mistake, not to mention disrespectful of the people who have contributed to building our society.

Thus, we believe, since we always put our fellow citizens at the centre of our thoughts, our actions and our decision making, that it is essential to use the best possible framework for managing the use of hazardous materials. It seems redundant to say so, since it is so obvious that handling hazardous materials should be done following the most specific, rigorous and comprehensive parameters, both in their wording and application. Nonetheless, I think it is important to provide a few clarifications on how hazardous materials are currently managed in Canada.

The use of hazardous materials is governed by the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS). WHMIS is a combination of laws, regulations and procedures to protect workers by warning them about illnesses and injuries that could result from using hazardous chemical products in the workplace.

Quebec, the federal, provincial and territorial governments work together to implement the system.

The Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission (HMIRC) states that:

Under WHMIS, manufacturers and distributors of controlled (hazardous) products must provide information on the health and safety risks associated with their products, together with instructions for safe handling, storage, transportation, disposal and first-aid treatment. This information is conveyed by the product’s mandatory Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and label—

Each product's material safety data sheet must contain certain elements: it must list all hazardous ingredients in the product, its toxicological properties, as well as any safety precautions to be taken when the product is used. The material safety data sheet must also indicate first-aid treatment required in case of exposure to the product.

If any information required for the material safety data sheet deals with trade secrets, and revealing them would have serious consequences, there is a mechanism in place to determine the relevance of not posting all the information, and also to protect the rights of workers.

That mechanism is the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.

Having said that, in reference to Bill S-2, it seems clear to us that the amendments to the act have been requested by the main stakeholders and, as a result, they should be adopted. These amendments have been unanimously endorsed by the members of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, also known as HMIRC. The commission includes representatives of workers, suppliers, employers, and the federal, provincial and territorial governments; in other words, all the parties who are affected by this legislative measure.

Since I have started to speak about HMIRC, I will very briefly describe the commission before dealing with the substance of the bill.

The Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission was established in 1987 under the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act as part of the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, also known as WHMIS.

HMIRC is an independent agency that is accountable to the Parliament of Canada, through the Minister of Health. Its mandate is “to help safeguard both workers and trade secrets in Canada’s chemical industry”. It evaluates request from companies to withhold publication of some substances in certain products in order to protect trade secrets.

As a result, when a company wishes to obtain an exemption from the general obligation to disclose because it wishes to safeguard a trade secret—that might be the nature or the concentration of a harmful ingredient in a product that it manufactures—it must submit a request for exemption to HMIRC. The request is recorded by HMIRC, which determines whether the request for exemption is appropriate.

The mandate of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission is also to evaluate material safety data sheets and labels on hazardous materials to ensure compliance with the act.

As part of its mandate, in the fall of 2002, the council of governors of the commission formally and unanimously recommended to the then minister of health the amendments that are the subject of Bill S-2. These amendments are intended to correct shortcomings in three areas: the complexity of information of a commercial nature, the lack of a voluntary procedure for modification of a material safety data sheet, and finally, a lack of flexibility in the exchange of information between the commission and an independent board in an appeal process.

In seeking to improve the current process, Bill S-2 thus aims to achieve three distinct objectives.

First, it allows companies seeking an exemption from the general rules concerning the listing of hazardous ingredients to make a declaration that information in respect of which an exemption is claimed is confidential business information and that information substantiating the claim is available and will be provided on request, instead of de facto providing all the information.

Second, it allows the companies to give a voluntary undertaking to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission to make changes to a material safety data sheet or label listing hazardous ingredients to bring it into compliance with the Hazardous Products Act or the Canada Labour Code.

Finally, it allows the limited participation of the commission before an appeal board.

To address these three shortcomings identified by the HMIRC, which are—it might be a good idea to mention them again—the complexity of economic information, the absence of a voluntary data sheet correction process, and the lack of flexibility in the exchange of information between the commission and the independent boards during the appeal process, it is proposed to make three changes to the current legislation.

First, clauses 1, 2 and 8 of the bill change the requirements under subsection 11(4) of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, to specify that, in their claims for exemption, companies do not have to provide all the documentation previously required. The purpose of this change is to reduce the complexity of the applications, especially when the information does not help the HMIRC make a decision on the economic considerations involved.

At present, companies seeking an exemption have to submit detailed documentation on the steps they have taken to protect confidentiality with respect to the ingredients used in their products and on the potential financial implications of disclosure.

In her testimony given to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on May 17, 2006, Sharon Watts, vice-president of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, indicated when HMIRC would require full documentation:

The commission will require full documentation to support a claim for exemption from disclosure when an affected party challenges a claim or when a claim is selected through a verification scheme that we will set up to discourage false or frivolous claims.

Clauses 3 and 4 of the bill amend articles 16 and 17 of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act in order to establish a new mechanism for having companies voluntarily amend the material safety data sheet. With this new mechanism, when a company requests an exemption, a screening officer may “send an undertaking to the claimant setting out the measures that are required to be taken for the purpose of compliance” with those provisions governing dangerous goods contained in the Hazardous Products Act and the Canada Labour Code.

The purpose of this amendment is twofold: to ensure that changes to material safety data sheets and labels are made more quickly and to ensure that companies acting in good faith will not be issued an order by HMIRC, as this can imply that they are reluctant to fulfill their responsibilities.

In comparison, current legislation requires the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission to issue a formal order for compliance, even if the company that requests an exemption is ready to respect its obligations and to make the necessary changes after being served notice.

The process, under the present legislation, is time consuming and strict. Thus, when a breach is reported, an order is sent to the company that requested the exemption.

I see I only have one minute left, so I will conclude by saying that this order must be published in the Canada Gazette and is not enforceable until 75 days after publication. There are further delays to allow the company to appeal the order, or to comply with the order and produce a new data sheet.

According to members of the HMIRC, the new procedure introduced by Bill S-2 would speed up the amendment process considerably, but existing rules would still allow orders to be issued to uncooperative companies in cases of non-compliance with the rules and in the absence of a final undertaking.

If I may, I would like to skip over the third proposed amendment, and simply point out that, for all the reasons previously outlined, my colleagues of the Bloc Québécois and I support the principle of Bill S-2.

We urge the other members of this House to do the same, in the interest of workers and—

Employment Insurance Act

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate and to deliver a speech on Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), which aims at improving the employment insurance plan. I take the opportunity to salute my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. I remember his early days in politics, which were very inspiring as a matter of fact. He used to put the Liberals in their place; they had been in power for a bit too long. He did the same for the Conservatives who, before them, were also not much help to the workers who had contributed and who are still contributing to the employment insurance plan. Just like the previous government, the present government continues not to give back to the workers the money they deserve and need when times get tough. The Bloc Québécois endorses the member's position. This is frankly an excellent initiative on the part of my NDP colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

First and foremost, I would like to emphasize that this is a good bill. Here are three points showing this. First, by lowering the threshold for becoming a major attachment claimant to 360 hours, it makes special benefits available to those with that level of insurable employment. Second, the bill sets the benefit payable to 55% of the average weekly insurable earnings during the highest-paid 12 weeks in the 12-month period preceding the interruption of earnings. Third, the bill reduces the qualifying period before receiving benefits and removes the distinctions made in the qualifying period on the basis of the regional unemployment rate. This is very good.

This bill touches on a number of important points. First, employment insurance is no longer an assistance program. It has become a hidden tax because not all those who contribute have access to the program when they become unemployed. Under the Liberals, the employment insurance fund was used to balance the budget even though that is not at all the purpose of employment insurance. Although the Conservatives voted in favour of an independent employment insurance fund, the surpluses generated remain in the consolidated fund and are still being used for other purposes. That was the case last September 25 and with this budget as well. We do not have an independent employment insurance fund and this issue must remain in the forefront. This is a priority for the Bloc Québécois.

Another important point is the Auditor General's report of November 23, 2004, which reported at the time that the government continued—as she said—to loot the employment insurance fund despite the intentions of parliamentarians. Furthermore, the powers of the Employment Insurance Commission, whose membership includes contributors, will apparently be suspended for yet another year. That happened in 2004 and it has not changed. This situation is deplorable.

Conservatives voted against improvements to the employment insurance program in Bill C-278 and against the Bloc Québécois Bill C-269. It is about time that these individuals, who have been elected, respond to the needs of citizens, of the workers who need this fund—which is an insurance fund—when they lose their jobs.

As for the Bloc Québécois, it is still dead set against the looting of the employment insurance fund and proposes, among other things, that an independent fund and commission be established. The Bloc Québécois also demands that the federal government pay back misused money. That is very important. Money taken from the employment insurance fund must be returned to those who paid into it, the employers and employees, for when it is needed by workers who lose their jobs.

Improving the system for workers in a vulnerable situation is a matter of principle that should be defended. In the past two years, the Bloc Québécois has worked tirelessly on improving this system and we have another example of that today.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities tabled or passed in its report of February 2005, no fewer than 28 very important recommendations that have to be considered and incorporated into the bill in order to respond to the needs of the workers. I will not read the 28 items, but I will cite a few to illustrate the importance and urgency of swiftly moving forward with the bill we are talking about today.

First, for example, the committee recommends a uniform 360 hour qualification requirement. This criterion, which was proposed by the committee at the time, is now in the bill. The committee also recommended a calculation based on the best 12 weeks of insurable employment; that is how benefits should be calculated for those who lose their jobs. The committee recommended increasing the benefit rate from 55% to 60% of average earnings before workers end up in a vulnerable situation. The committee also recommended that the government consider extending employment insurance coverage to self-employed workers. This is very important. This is a situation that did not exist before, or was quite rare at one time. Now it is a reality and these people should have the opportunity to receive employment insurance by contributing to it, of course, and being eligible for it.

The committee also recommended removing the arm's-length relationship clause within the employment insurance criteria, and eliminating the waiting period for those engaged in approved training. Furthermore, the committee recommended that individuals who take part in training to improve their status and perfect their skills should not be penalized, because they will be taking a course while receiving EI benefits, for instance. I could give countless other arguments, but let us move on.

The bill would reduce the minimum qualifying period to 360 hours of work for everyone—as we heard earlier—but the benefit period would vary with the region and the regional rate of unemployment. In comparison to the current figures, the new system would represent an average increase of five weeks in the benefit period and an increase in the maximum benefit period from 45 to 50 weeks. In regions with high unemployment—13% or more—it would provide between 30 and 50 weeks of benefits, depending on the hours worked and the unemployment rate.

For Quebec's high unemployment regions, however, it would substantially reduce what we call the spring gap or black hole. For example, in Gaspé, where the unemployment rate as of October 7, 2006, was 17.6%, a person who worked 360 hours would be eligible for 36 weeks of benefits.

I could go on. Nonetheless, we can clearly see the relevance of this bill, which is extremely important for all workers throughout Quebec and Canada.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system).

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the standing committee on Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine).

Employment Insurance

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard witnesses on Bill C-269, a Bloc Québécois bill that proposes significant and costly changes to Canada's employment insurance system.

This afternoon, the committee will do the clause by clause study.

When asked about the costs associated with specific clauses, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle, who is sponsoring the bill, could not provide any explanation. We asked her to explain the costs three times, and she dodged the question all three times.

Does the Bloc not understand? Perhaps it has so much trouble with public funds because it has never been in power, and never will be.

How can we support a bill if we cannot rely on the numbers put forward by the Bloc Québécois? The Bloc already introduced a similar bill during the previous Parliament. It was defeated. The Bloc has had over a year to do its homework, yet, it failed again. What a surprise.

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

The improvements proposed in Bill C-269 are aimed precisely at restoring that balance. The goal is to ensure that the majority of people who wish to be eligible can indeed receive benefits.

I cannot say that the results will equal 100%, but we can probably say that the majority of workers will qualify for the EI system following the improvements that we would like to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I think the bill you're referring to is the one we're going to deal with next. You're on Bill C-269?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair

I am very honoured to be here as a witness. I feel a little off kilter because I am used to being seated on the parliamentarians' side. I ask your indulgence, my dear colleagues.

I am pleased because, during this session, I also had the privilege of sponsoring Bill C-269. This bill is the result of a great deal of hard work by the committee and my colleague Yves Lessard. I am very honoured to have had the opportunity to present this bill in the 39th Parliament.

The purpose of Bill C-269 is to improve the present employment insurance system, which the Conservative and Liberal governments have distorted over the years into an unfair program that bears increasingly little resemblance to an insurance plan. More than 50% of unemployed workers are not covered by this insurance, even though they pay premiums and the plan continues, year after year, to accumulate surpluses in its coffers.

It seems that the contributions of workers and employers have turned into a disguised tax and that the amounts amassed in this fund are used for purposes other than those of employment insurance.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities studied this issue in 2004 and, on February 15, 2005, issued 28 recommendations for improving the program.

You will recall that the Conservatives supported certain recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities whereby the plan would be reserved for the benefit of workers.

The Bloc Québécois worked on this committee and was primarily responsible for adoption of the report. Thus, on May 8, 2006, I tabled a bill on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, which, if adopted, will make sweeping changes to the program.

Enacting Bill C-269 will provide a lifeline for workers and that is why the government must have the political will to change the system before any more damage is done.

We should recall that, until 1990, the Canadian government contributed to the unemployment insurance fund. In 1990, however, Brian Mulroney's Conservative government destroyed that equilibrium by terminating the federal government's contribution to the fund, leaving the entire funding of it to employers and workers. The withdrawal of federal funding created a major deficit in the fund at that time. The government then tried to solve the problem by slashing the coverage that the system provided, cutting the benefits paid to unemployed workers and tightening the eligibility rules for workers. The effect of this was to reduce the number of people covered by the system by half between 1989 and 1997 and to create enormous surpluses in the fund.

For more than 15 years, workers and employers have been the only contributors to the fund, and every year, the fund surpluses are swallowed up by a federal machine whose appetite knows no bounds. The EI account cumulative balance has ballooned since 1994, reaching about $50 billion to date.

There is no doubt that this cumulative balance is the result, among other things, of many changes that have restricted coverage of employment insurance since the early 1990s. The reform of employment insurance, in 1996, gave rise to a more restrictive system by tightening the eligibility criteria.

The EI account cumulative balance belongs to the employment insurance system and the government has the moral obligation to restore it in full. The EI account surplus must be applied to the employment insurance system.

In her November 2005 report, the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, said there was an accumulated surplus of more that $48 billion. She also declared that the federal government had the obligation to respect the Employment Insurance Act and added that:

For the past six years, we have drawn Parliament's attention to our concerns about the government's compliance with the intent of the Employment Insurance Act, with respect to the setting of employment insurance premium rates and its impact on the size and growth of the accumulated surplus in the Employment Insurance Account. The accumulated surplus in the Account increased by an additional $2 billion in 2004-05 to reach $48 billion by the end of March 2005.

Today, about 40% of people who lose their jobs manage to qualify for employment insurance benefits. That is 4 workers out of 10. The people the most affected by the federal government's reforms are women, young people and seasonal workers. Of course, they are the same persons who are the most dependent on the program because they occupy precarious and unstable jobs.

With the changes to the system, the number of women covered by employment insurance decreased from 73% to 33%. They often have seasonal and unstable jobs.

In some parts of the country, it is impossible for people to accumulate more than 360 hours of work because of the large number of seasonal jobs in agriculture, forestry and tourism. The regions are suffering economically from plant shutdowns and, more recently, job losses in the forestry sector. In my riding, for example, in the regional municipality of Antoine-Labelle, 80% of the local economy is dependent upon the forestry sector; 80% of this industry's activities are at a standstill because of the current crisis.

Workers are victims of massive layoffs and often they do not qualify for employment benefits. Yet, they contributed to the fund for many years. Not only do workers become poorer because they are deprived of the right to EI benefits, but their families and their regions are also impoverished. Statistics show that the number of claimants has gone down since 1996; however, contrary to what we might thing, it is the number of eligible claimants that has gone down. The eligibility requirements are so strict that fewer and fewer workers qualify.

The time has come to give contributors what is owed to them and to stop looting the fund. The system we had in the 1990s is no longer suited to today's realities. That is why reforms are needed to help workers. Bill C-269 aims to restore some fairness for workers in the way employment insurance benefits are delivered. The employment insurance system must be updated to make it more accessible for vulnerable workers.

First of all, this bill aims to reduce the qualifying period to a 360 hours regardless of the regional unemployment rate.

This measure will eliminate the inequities between regions on the basis of their unemployment rates. This rule would also cover seasonal workers and those with unstable jobs. The required 360 hours correspond to 12 weeks of 30 hours. The benefit period varies according to the region and the regional unemployment rate. For regions with a high unemployment rate, this would eliminate the infamous “seasonal gap”, which leads us to the following recommendation: increase the maximum benefit period from 45 to 50 weeks.

Every year, seasonal workers face the seasonal gap, leaving them without benefits for as long as 10 weeks. Statistics show that 35% of recipients use their full benefits. In a regional municipality in my riding, that figure rises to 43%. According to an excerpt from the report, witnesses stated that the benefit period should be increased to 50 weeks, as is the case for special benefits. This measure would solve the longstanding problem of the seasonal gap, which mainly affects seasonal workers who have no benefits before the start of the next season. Although the government has taken measures to address this problem, further action is required. Resource regions are particularly affected. Bill C-269puts an end to the seasonal gap by increasing the benefit period from 45 to 50 weeks.

Next, the bill aims to increase the rate of weekly benefits to 60% of insurable earnings rather than 55% as is currently the case.

Unstable jobs are generally the least well paid and these changes would provide claimants with a bare minimum. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities made this recommendation in 2005. This measure would help women in particular, since the 55% rate primarily affects low-wage earners, two-thirds of them women.

The Bill also eliminates the waiting period between the time when people lose their jobs and apply for benefits and the time when they receive their first cheques.

Workers should not be penalized for losing their jobs. Their financial obligations continue even if the money is late arriving. The waiting period penalizes workers who have lost their jobs without being fired or resigning. These workers often have a low income and it is further reduced by the period of unemployment they are entering, and which is not justified because the waiting period does not affect the maximum benefit period.

The Bill eliminates the distinction between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force.

This practice is completely discriminatory, especially with respect to young people and women whose work situation is more precarious. The fact that a worker has received benefits is a determining factor in whether or not he or she is considered a new entrant or a re-entrant to the labour force. The eligibility conditions have become incoherent and fragmented. A person not considered a new entrant or a re-entrant must accumulate fewer insurable hours to be entitled to regular benefits, whereas a new entrant or re-entrant must accumulate 910 hours, which is becoming increasingly difficult in many regions. This becomes a major deterrent for individuals who wish to work in agriculture, forestry and several other sectors providing seasonal employment. It is virtually impossible for these individuals to accumulate 910 hours in these sectors.

The Bill will eliminate the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm's length.

The burden of proof with regard to dealing at arm's length is always shouldered by the employees of family businesses, who are deemed guilty until proven otherwise. We understand that it is important to discourage fraudulent relations between employers and employees. However, it should not be up to workers to prove their good faith when they lose their jobs; it should be up to the system to investigate when there are doubts.

The Bill increases the maximum yearly insurable earnings, which stood at $39,000 when the Bill was tabled.

The maximum has now been set at $40,000. We were asking that it be raised from $39,000 to $41,500 and that an indexing formula be introduced. The current contribution formula is actually a regressive tax that affects low-income earners the most. Once the maximum insurable earnings have been reached, higher income-earners pay no further premiums, whereas lower income-earners contribute for the entire year.

The Bloc Québécois is recommending that there be greater fairness. The maximum was once $43,000. Furthermore, higher income-earners are only covered for 55% of $39,000, the maximum yearly insurable earnings when the Bill was tabled. It is difficult to pay one's bills with so little, even if it is only for a few weeks.

Benefits must be calculated based on the 12 best weeks so as not to penalize seasonal workers who sometimes work short weeks.

Only the weeks with the highest earnings in the new benefit calculation period would be considered and the average earnings would be calculated using the 12 best weeks of insurable earnings. The NDP member, Yvon Godin, tabled Bill C-265 in May 2006 in this regard. We believe it is vital that this new formula be implemented.

Finally, we must extend program coverage to self-employed workers, given that they currently represent 16% of the labour force. These workers have no coverage should they become unemployed. Premiums would be paid on a voluntary basis and the rate would be established by the chief actuary on the basis of need. Complete coverage should be provided.

In closing, I would like to remind the committee that workers, employers, the Auditor General of Canada, the Bloc Québécois and now even the UN have criticized the federal government and its employment insurance program. In an article that appeared in La Press on May 23, it was reported that the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and I quote:

—recommends that the State party reassess the Employment Insurance scheme with a view to providing greater access and improved benefit levels to all unemployed workers.

Furthermore, during the last election campaign, the Conservatives made a commitment to put in place an independent employment insurance program and to create an autonomous fund administered by employees and employers. They also supported the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources whereby the plan would be reserved for the sole benefit of workers. They deemed the practice of accumulating a surplus intellectually dishonest, and a deliberate attempt to overtax workers and their employers for the purpose of diverting funds to finance other government priorities.

Obviously, there are serious shortcomings in the management of the employment insurance fund. The priority is to end the injustices that harm workers, their families and businesses. We must quickly enact the necessary measures allowing workers to benefit from the insurance program to which they contribute.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 8, 2006, we'll begin our meeting on Bill C-269, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act for improvement of the employment insurance system. Since we have a limited amount of time, I think we should try to get started as quickly as possible.

Ms. Deschamps is going to talk about her bill for a bit. Before we go to her, I'll mention to you that today's meeting has been structured so that we have two meetings. The first is from 3:30 to 4:30. After we take a break, Mr. Eyking will come in and talk for the second hour about his private member's bill.

We'd like to get through at least two rounds of questions, so for the sake of time, I'm going to ask that the first round be five minutes instead of seven, and that the second round be four minutes instead of five. This is just so that we can get in a couple of rounds and we can all ask Ms. Deschamps some questions about her private member's bill.

Without any more talking on my behalf, I would ask Ms. Deschamps to make her opening remarks.

We welcome you. Thank you for being here today to discuss your private member's bill.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a program for which only 40% of all unemployed workers qualify. This is totally unacceptable.

If the minister is short of ideas, he should read Bill C-269, presented by the Bloc Québécois, which proposes to increase the rate of weekly benefits, to reduce the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work, and to calculate benefits by using the best 12 weeks. All that is missing for this bill to become law is the will of the Conservative government.

What is the government waiting for to move forward with this legislation?

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

Mr. Lessard, we're not suggesting any witnesses on Bill C-269. In fact, there are two on Bill C-278, the Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, that want to speak in support of the bill because of the number of Canadians who were disabled from those two diseases.

Perhaps what I should do is propose an amendment that only the sponsor of Bill C-269 be heard and leave Bill C-278 completely off the table, or I can take out the whole line, line 86.