Bill C-241 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period)

This enactment removes the waiting period that precedes the commencement of benefits after an interruption of earnings and repeals provisions that refer to that waiting period.

Employment Insurance Act

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

moved that Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to read the summary of the bill.

This enactment removes the waiting period that precedes the commencement of benefits after an interruption of earnings and repeals provisions that refer to that waiting period.

Let us begin with a definition of what a waiting period is. It is the two weeks following application for employment insurance. This two week period starts the day following the day the person loses his job. There are very few cases where this waiting period does not apply. There are exceptions for maternity leave for the first child, etc, but they are very rare. In our opinion, the two week waiting period is not right and that is why we want to get rid of it.

On November 25 last year, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development answered a question from the Bloc Québécois concerning abolition of the waiting period as follows:

It is insurance, and as with any insurance, there is always a wait period, because of course there must be confirmation that they are being laid off for longer than just a week or two. This is necessary to ensure the integrity of the system.

We do not agree with this. Even if people are laid off just a week, that week ought to be paid. As a general rule, in the present crisis situation, people are rarely laid off for a week, or for two weeks, but for far longer than that.

The truth is that the waiting period is nothing more and nothing less than a way of punishing the workers. Because they have lost their jobs, they get nothing to live on for two weeks. How can a family with several children and a single breadwinner survive for two weeks without that one income? It does not occur to the present government that people have huge hardships to cope with during that period.

I will even give examples of people in my riding who worked overtime for which they were not paid for several years. It was paid when they lost their jobs, even though they had worked those hours several years earlier. In the case of people receiving a pension, the employer’s part was considered income by employment insurance, even though it had been paid in 2006-07 and was not current income. It was calculated, therefore, as income and divided by the number of weeks worked, which pushed back the beginning of the waiting period, in some cases by as much as several weeks. In other words, people who are without an income and who have spent all their money are punished with a two week delay without an income. This puts them in a very difficult situation and it is totally unnecessary.

Does the government arrange it so that the unemployed suffer serious economic difficulties, in the hope that they will get back to work faster? This kind of logic is totally nonsensical. The role of government is quite the opposite: to help people and meet their needs.

Sweden sets an example for the whole world, even though it is sometimes criticized for giving too much. Still, 80% to 85% of Swedes who lose their jobs find another and go back to work.

The two week waiting period does not exist and everyone who loses their job gets one year of employment insurance.

There is no work penalty, and the duration is not affected by a waiting period. We think that if the waiting period were eliminated, people who lose their jobs could find another more easily and more quickly because they would not be worrying about how they are going to survive the next two weeks. It would help people get back to work.

The government deprives the unemployed of $900 million. The minister has actually calculated that such a step would cost $900 million. It is possible. We will take that number. We do not say it is unrealistic and it may be true. What it means, though, is that $900 million is not being given back to the unemployed. That $900 million would do a lot to help people get back to work.

The current economic crisis is creating more unemployed people and the government therefore wants to inject money into the economy as quickly as possible. I think that the $900 million that has been paid by both the unemployed and their employers should be given back to the unemployed and should not be turned into something that is discriminatory. I will actually read an article in a few minutes from a newspaper in my riding which points out just how discriminatory this is for working people.

As I said earlier, all the large amounts received just delay the waiting period. This money is subtracted and pushes back the two week waiting period.

I would like to mention a few short passages from a newspaper in my riding, a large regional paper from Sherbrooke, which talks about a terrible scandal, the two week waiting period. It says:

Economic groups, unions and politicians have been fighting for over a decade to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

This specifically concerns the waiting period. This is fair to say because it has been demanded by unions, by community groups, by groups that defend the unemployed and also by workers. Truly everyone is demanding that the waiting period be eliminated.

It has been said that employment insurance is a universal system. If it is universal and is imposed by the government, why now are only 53% of people eligible for employment insurance benefits when in 1989, 83% of people who lost their jobs were eligible? Fewer and fewer people are eligible for employment insurance and, on top of that, there is a waiting period that should not exist.

In addition, I would like to point out that they have added—and this is the argument we will keep hearing—five weeks to the end of employment insurance benefits. However, these five weeks at the end do not replace the two weeks at the beginning. We know that only 28% of people use all of their employment insurance benefits. That means that this five week measure affects only 28% of unemployed people. Once again, this is obviously discriminatory.

I would like to come back to the newspaper article. It talks about how we have moved from an employment insurance system to a deficit insurance system. It adds that this is scandalous. How true.

We agree fully with this newspaper, which also mentions that eliminating the two week waiting period would have a much greater impact on the financial security of claimants. That is exactly what I am trying to say. You can see that the Bloc Québécois are not the only ones to think this way.

The article also goes on to say:

In an economic crisis, these measures penalize the most vulnerable workers in our society.

That is quite right. The most vulnerable in our society need these two weeks.

According to the Canada Labour Congress, estimated benefits lost...total more than $43 million a year for the City of Sherbrooke alone—

The figures are the same. Sherbrooke is just beside my riding. I live in the Eastern Townships and the amount of employment insurance benefits not handed out and kept by the government is estimated at $100 million. These monies could cover the two week waiting period. The money is there. We do not have to look for it elsewhere. Workers have already paid for it.

How can the Government of Quebec tolerate having this social cost passed on to it—

Given that employment insurance is not paid during these two weeks, the social cost is passed on to Quebec, or Ontario or the other provinces because people have to get through these weeks with a minimum amount of money.

Sherbrooke is already seeing what it can do—

It is not just a national matter. Cities are also interested in this problem as are regional stakeholders such as the chambers of commerce. Earlier, I spoke about those advocating for this change. As we can see, the chambers of commerce also want the waiting period to be eliminated.

This article asks—and so do we together with the Liberals and the New Democrats—that everyone join us to create a majority and eliminate the waiting period, which is a real failure of our democratic system.

This government must recognize the pressing need to eliminate the two week waiting period for everyone—

I did not say it. It was in an article that was just published on February 19. That is very recent.

—to improve access to the program and speed up payment of premiums.

This injustice must be corrected now. For many of our fellow citizens, access to insurance paid for by employers and employees is not a privilege but a right and a question of dignity.

That is how the article ends, and we completely agree with it. We would also like to ask the Liberals to support our bill. In the past, it was under the Liberals that the employment insurance system began to deteriorate. However, since they have been in opposition, they are keeping an eye on employment insurance and they appear much more willing to listen. We hope they will be receptive to the unemployed workers who are having difficulty during those first two weeks. We are not asking for a major revolution; we are simply asking that the two week waiting period be completely eliminated for everyone and that as soon as someone loses his or her job, that individual can receive employment insurance immediately.

The waiting period always comes at the beginning, except when money is found and it is pushed back even further. The two consecutive weeks end the Saturday of the following week. It is all planned very carefully so there can be no getting around it.

We are asking that these two weeks be replaced by employment insurance. Even if it costs $900 million, that would be one way of injecting $900 million into the economy immediately. Indeed, we can be sure that anyone who loses their job will not be setting this money aside, either in the bank or in a trust fund. They will spend it immediately, because they need it.

This is what we really want and we hope that all members of the House will understand the importance of this bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with congratulations to my colleague for his altruistic bill which will demonstrate the kind-heartedness of the 308 members of this assembly who will—at least I hope they will—vote in favour of helping the unemployed. Let us not forget that our children, our neighbours, even we ourselves, may one day need this assistance when a job is lost. The waiting period has to be eliminated so that EI recipients can immediately have some income to help their families.

My question is this: as far back as 2004, a motion with the backing of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities was moved by the Bloc Québécois in order to get the federal government of the day to pay back the $46 billion—and let us keep in mind that a billion is 1,000 million—that had been lifted from the employment insurance fund, in order to return that money to the people for whom it was intended, who are in need of it, and who are receiving employment insurance benefits. Those people and their employers had put that money into the fund, not the federal government.

If I am correct, the figure is now $54 billion. This would mean that what the Liberals started—which was absolutely odious—the Conservatives have continued. They have continued to dip into the EI fund and the money has not been returned to those rightfully entitled to it.

Is this really the case? Would this not be a good way of getting the money to help people in need of it?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. The position he has taken with respect to this matter illustrates that this is really a generalized need.

A surplus is indeed continuing to accumulate in the employment insurance fund at a rather unbelievable rate. That is why it is being said that the government is accumulating money—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before the royal assent ceremony, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi had the floor for questions and comments following his speech. He has about three minutes left to wrap up his remarks or take further questions.

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. I do not mind moving on to another question, but I may not have finished my response to the previous question.

The important thing to bear in mind is that, right now, the employment insurance system is not getting what it is supposed to get. It is grossly unfair to workers, partly because of the two week waiting period. That is the first thing we should eliminate, but the employment insurance system has a number of other shortcomings too.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague, but how much does the program cost?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I did not understand the question. I think my colleague wants to know how much this measure would cost. The minister mentioned a fairly accurate figure, $900 million, which would come from the fund. There is money in the fund. The fund is not short of cash—quite the opposite, in fact. As my colleague pointed out earlier, the surplus now exceeds $50 billion. The money is there, and the $900 million would be injected directly into Canada's economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak about the employment insurance program. I thank the hon. member for raising the subject.

I will address the specific issue of the two week waiting period in Bill C-241, but first I would like to outline our government's strategic approach to EI through Canada's economic action plan.

While Canada is better prepared than almost any other country to weather the worldwide recession, we certainly are not immune to it. We know people are facing uncertainty and are concerned. We know that those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own are facing difficult times ahead. We feel for these people and we are working to protect them. We have taken and continue to take action to ensure that help is there for Canadians and their families when they need it most.

To this end, we consulted widely with Canadians. In fact, prior to introducing our economic action plan in budget 2009, we conducted the most extensive prebudget consultations in the history of our country.

Through our plan, among other things we are proposing to extend EI benefits, while investing an unprecedented $8.3 billion in the Canada skills and transition strategy. Our aim in all of this is to improve employment insurance in areas where the need is the greatest.

One of the things that came up time and time again through our consultations was that EI benefits needed to be lengthened in order to provide greater assistance to those facing longer-term challenges in looking for work. That is why through our economic action plan, for the next two years, we will make available nationally the five weeks of extended EI benefits that have been previously available through a pilot project only, in regions with the highest unemployment. The government will also increase the maximum duration of benefits to 50 weeks, up from 45.

Some 400,000 Canadians could benefit from these changes. This measure will provide financial support for a longer period to unemployed Canadians who would otherwise have exhausted their benefits. This means unemployed workers will have more time to seek employment while receiving EI.

This is very important and a point I cannot stress enough. Exhaustion of EI benefits is difficult on any family. Canadians who are unemployed for extended periods will have more time to find work under our plan.

It is putting the dollars to use where they are needed the most. This approach better suits the needs of Canadians than simply eliminating the two week waiting period of which the member speaks. There are several reasons for this.

First, it is important to look at why there is a two week waiting period in the first place. The two week waiting period serves to ensure that EI resources are focused on workers dealing with significant gaps in employment. In fact, if we eliminated the two week waiting period, claims would not be processed any more quickly. The additional processing required by eliminating the waiting period would generate a significant increase in volumes associated with short spells of unemployment. This would put further pressure on service standards and processing resources.

These additional strains and pressures on the system could lead to even longer wait times for people to have their claims processed.

On these points, we are backed up by David Dodge, the former governor of the Bank of Canada. On December 18, Mr. Dodge appeared on the CTV Newsnet program, Mike Duffy Live. Some of us still remember that program and many have watched it.

When asked whether eliminating the two week waiting period for EI was an expenditure worth making, Mr. Dodge responded unequivocally. He said, “The answer is no. That would be probably the worst waste of money we could make...because there's a lot of churn in the labour market, just normal churn”. Mr. Dodge also said, “that two weeks is there for a very good reason...the real issue is that some of these people are going to be off work for a rather long period of time”.

Therefore, that is where we are directing our efforts. I think what the former governor of the Bank of Canada was trying to say at that time was those who were off for longer periods of time were the ones who were in more desperate straits and needed the help to a greater extent.

The fact is that during these uncertain times, some people may be off work for longer periods. That is why EI help needs to be targeted in such a fashion, so they will receive that help when they need it.

It is worth noting that the Bloc's proposal to eliminate the two week wait period would not provide any additional assistance to workers who exhaust their EI benefits. For those who exhaust all of their EI benefits, eliminating the two week period would simply mean their benefits would start two weeks earlier but they would also end two weeks earlier.

We believe that providing EI claimants with five additional weeks of benefit is better targeted than the two weeks the opposition is proposing. Five weeks is better than two weeks. I wonder if the member would not agree with me that is a significant improvement and an advancement to the program. This is better targeted help. This is smarter help. It is help that is needed more.

Providing an additional five weeks of benefits would go further in helping those who need our help the most, those who are having difficulty finding work over the long term. They will derive greater benefit from having five additional weeks of benefits as opposed to only getting two weeks of additional benefits at the beginning of their EI claim period.

Looking at the bigger picture, our economic action plan focuses not only on the benefit side of EI, but equally on the importance of training. We are increasing funding for training delivered through the employment insurance program by $1 billion over two years.

This large investment will help to respond to the higher demand for labour market programs and training owing to increased unemployment. As a result, thousands more EI eligible clients could receive training and be better prepared when times improve.

In this regard, I would like to highlight something else David Dodge said, “I think the Prime Minister's right, that we do have to concentrate on improving the skills of people, and with that improvement in skills...we will find opportunities going forward”.

We are making an investment into the future. We are making an investment in people so when the economic circumstances change they will be ready to meet the challenges.

I agree with Mr. Dodge. We do need to concentrate on improving skills and training, and that is what we are doing.

Our plan also takes into consideration the needs of long-tenured workers who have been laid off. To help these long-tenured workers change occupations or sectors, we are introducing a pilot project that would extend EI benefits to them so they could pursue longer term training.

We are also proposing that workers with severance or other separation payments be eligible for earlier access to EI benefits if they use some or all of their payments to purchase skills upgrading or training.

With our plan, not only are we proposing to extend benefits, we are also proposing to freeze EI premium rates for 2010 at the same rate as 2009. This will provide a projected $4.5 billion stimulus over two years.

This stimulus means more money for employers to keep or hire employees. This means more money in the pockets of hardworking Canadians.

Through our new strategic training and transition fund, we are also providing significant funds to help meet the different training and support needs of workers who do not qualify for EI. This will include those who have been out of work for a prolonged period of time. Up to 50,000 individuals are expected to benefit from this training and other measures.

Rather than looking at just one aspect of EI and tinkering around the edges, we have looked at the economic and labour market as a whole. We have put forward EI measures that are targeted to the needs of Canadians. Our actions are forward-looking and better suited to help those who need it most.

Members of the Liberal opposition should be reminded that their former Liberal minister of human resources, Jane Stewart, had this to say about the two week waiting period, “the two week waiting period is like a deductible in an insurance program. It is there for a purpose”.

In the end we have to look at the entire package. The entire package not only helps those who are on EI for a longer period of time, but it allows them to upgrade their skills and retrain. We have to look at the broad picture by investing billions of dollars into skills training and retraining.

We are looking at the big picture. We cannot take just one segment of it like the bill proposes to do. We have to look at it globally, which we have done. I think Canadians will find it acceptable.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I commend the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, our critic for HRDC, who does a tremendous job on the EI file and on his whole critic portfolio. This is an issue and a subject on which he has done a great deal of work. I have a great deal of respect for all he has accomplished.

On this particular issue of the two week waiting period, the position of our critic and the position of our party will be to support this bill as we did in the last Parliament. A similar bill was brought forward in the last Parliament and we supported that as well.

I and many Canadians are very concerned with what has gone on in the economy of late with 129,000 jobs being lost just in the month of January. Many people are facing the great dilemma of whether to fill their oil tank, their prescriptions or their fridge.

I am concerned when I hear the parliamentary secretary state that David Dodge figures this is the best way to do this. I bet it has been quite some time since David Dodge had to walk in the back door, look at his wife, who is trying to feed four kids, and wonder where the next quart of milk is coming from. It is something he probably has not had to experience.

The unemployed are the most vulnerable and they need help and they need it now.

In reference to the five weeks, this is something the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has come back with in many of her answers to the question about the extension. The reality is that the five weeks applies only to those who quality for maximum benefits. If people qualify for 30 weeks they do not get 35 weeks. If they qualify for 32 weeks they do not get 37 weeks. People need to qualify for maximum benefits in order to qualify for those five weeks. This is something the government has been stating but we have not received clarification on this. I would hope the government takes the proper steps to ensure those five weeks are extended to all claimants through these very difficult and trying times.

The reference was made to a former minister, Jane Stewart, who handled the HRDC file a number of years back in past Liberal governments, and to the changes that were made through 1990s. We know that the EI system had been bankrupt coming into the early 1990s. We know that the Auditor General did not want EI revenues and the EI program run through an arm's length or a separate account but through general accounts. However, with inflation and an unemployment rate at 12% through the Mulroney days, our economy was in turmoil.

In order to salvage the EI program in the mid-1990, unprecedented steps were taken. Maybe those steps were necessary. I know the government likes to refer back and say that the Liberals made these cuts when they were in control but it forgets the second part of that where it was saying that the cuts did not go deep enough, that the cuts should have been greater.

The Liberals did make cuts and some of the changes that were made in the mid-1990s did alter the system and put disincentives in the system that hurt many people. I think we could probably get consensus on that on this side of the chamber.

As unemployment came down, more people were working and paying into the fund and with fewer people drawing out we all know the success story that was the EI surplus.

Changes were made in mid-2000, 2003 and 2004, including the doing away of the divisor rule and a number of changes that took some disincentives out. We know that every change in the system has a cost and that there is an accounting for every change and adaptation that is made. Coming into the debate late, I am not sure what the costing is on this or whether or not my colleague had put that forward.

Members of our caucus have put forward a number of pieces of EI legislation through private members' bills. My colleague for Sydney—Victoria has a private members' bill on extending sick benefits to those receiving benefits who have catastrophic health concerns. If one is battling a catastrophic disease or receiving cancer treatment, there should be an extension of health benefits paid through EI because we want those people to be totally focused on getting healthy.

One of the greatest concerns about any change in the system now is with what the government has done in establishing the arm's length agency to administer it. As we go into these trying times, we do not know if it will be able to stand up to a recession. We hope it will. When witnesses appeared before the HRDC committee, the actuaries were very concerned about the $2 billion limit that was put on the establishment of this arm's length agency. They thought the figure should have been closer to $10 billion or $12 billion. I guess we will see. If we continue to bleed the jobs that we are losing of late in this economy, the system will certainly be tested.

I think that those who lose their jobs are the most vulnerable people in our society. They should not go without a paycheque for a week or two weeks. We see that the increase in the time to turn around those benefits has increased over the last two years. I believe it is wise. I commend the member for putting this bill forward and I look forward to supporting this when it comes to the floor for a vote.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to join in the debate tonight on an issue that means quite a bit to not only the people I represent in Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, but to people across Canada.

The bill would put in place something for which we, in the NDP, have been calling for quite some time: to end the two week waiting period before a claimant can receive employment insurance benefits.

The bill closely resembles the bill of my colleague from Nickel Belt and is a component of my own private member's bill that we will debate here in the House in the coming weeks.

As I stated, the bill is important to the people in my riding but is even more important to Canadians who will be forced to apply for employment insurance, which is becoming all too common these days. When workers lose their jobs, are laid off or watch as the company they have been employed by dissolve before their eyes, the last thing they need is a gap in their income.

Unfortunately, that is about the first thing they get. They need to wait for two weeks before they are eligible to receive a stipend from employment insurance, the same insurance they have paid into in good faith for the term of their employment. It is an unnecessary hardship. It is a hardship that is being thrust upon people at the worst time when they have enough to worry about.

To hear our Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development talk about these people, it is not difficult to spot the contempt and suspicion she has for the unemployed. We must remember that she thinks it is very lucrative to be on EI. I think that is a shame. To her, people on EI are lazy or even look forward to receiving benefits. She does not recognize that it is a benefit that they paid for in good times with the expectation that they would be able to count on it in lean times.

Even for those lucky enough to quality for the benefits, they are forced to wait. They are forced to exhaust severances and dip into hard-earned savings while they wait.

It is very telling. It shows the level of respect the Conservatives have for the unemployed. It shows the lack of compassion they have for the unemployed and it shows the shortsightedness they suffer from as well, because there is no better short term economic stimulus available to the government than employment insurance.

This is not something I am wishing were true or just making up. It is a fact. Employment insurance has the single best multiplier effect out of the stimulus tools available to the government. It has a multiplier of $1.64 for every dollar the government spends on it. Therefore, basically, when people receive EI, they are not the ones taking big vacations. They are out spending the money in their communities. Hence, the economic stimulus is even greater. It has the best bang for the buck.

It is certainly better than tax cuts that flow directly into savings accounts in most cases. It is even better than infrastructure spending because it flows directly to the places where the economy is doing its worst and helps to shore up those local economies. It is not bogged down with red tape and has an established and reliable delivery system.

People on EI spend their EI cheques within two weeks of receiving it. Best of all, it has already been paid for by the workers of this country. It really does not cost the government anything. It just needs to lose its dependency on using the premiums it collects to fund other government expenditures.

It is extremely important that people do not need to wait two weeks for their cheques at the beginning. The problem is that at the end of the day there are less people who qualify for EI so the two weeks would actually benefit these people.

The government already knows all of this and is choosing to ignore it. It was told as much by Ian Lee, the director of the MBA program at the Sprott School of Business back in the prebudget consultations. It just chose to ignore it. The Conservatives like the program the way it is.

For the present government and the Liberal government that preceded it, employment insurance has been the cash cow that funds their real priorities, priorities like corporate tax breaks and dirty sponsorship deals, things that really matter to these hard right, entitled politicians.

We have been told that over $54 billion have been built up in the employment insurance fund. The fund has been building up because over the last 15 years successive governments implemented deep cuts to benefits and changed the ineligibility rules.

That money, which was meant to be used as an emergency fund for the workers, has been basically stolen from them and used for all kinds of expenditures.

Statistics show that in 2006 and 2007 fewer than four in ten unemployed workers were able to access benefits. Is that not a shame? The impact on qualification was even greater for women. In 1996, the maximum weekly benefit was $604. Now the maximum is only $447, with the average person getting about $335 a week.

These trends go the wrong way. We need to reverse them. If people do not have access to their EI funds when they need them the most, where do they go? They go on welfare. I think that is a shame.

We can see that a lot of money should be available and there should be no reason for a person to have to endure a waiting period at all. In a time when we are witnessing our economy shedding jobs at an alarming rate, there is no way people are collecting EI because they are lazy or because it is so lucrative that there is no point in looking for another job.

In many cases, especially in a riding such as mine, there are no other jobs for these people. They have a choice to make. They can tough it out and wait for the mills and mines to get back to work, which is something the government does not seem to want to help very much, or they can leave. Sadly, we are witnessing more and more departures.

White River, a community in my constituency, is shrinking at an alarming rate. Is that what we want for our smaller, more vulnerable communities? Does everyone have to abandon their rural roots and take low-paying service industry jobs in the bigger cities? I do not think that has to be the case. I do not believe we have been elected just to sit on our hands and watch that happen.

There are things we can do and mechanisms we can trip to try to stop the bleeding. Reducing the waiting period for EI is an important one that we must continue to fight for.

We are not the only ones calling for these changes. The Bloc recognizes that the two week waiting period should be eliminated and that other changes should be made to employment insurance. The Canadian Labour Congress, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, the Conseil national des chômeurs and unemployed workers themselves are calling for these changes.

They see the benefit of protecting our workers and their communities now, immediately. They see the benefit in keeping our unemployed workers in their communities, allowing stores to stay open and rent and mortgages to be paid. They see the real difference a few weeks of EI benefits can make in earlier access.

These are exceptional times. Exceptional times deserve exceptional responses from governments, but we are not getting that from our current government. It is out to make the hard times harder. Shame on it.

It has tacked on a few weeks of EI, and it would seem that is it. That is all it is going to give to the workers of our country. It has not made it more accessible. It has not made it more substantial. It has not done much, and that is patently wrong. The government has all kinds of money for tax breaks for corporations--money that comes in part out of the EI fund, as we have seen--but when it comes time for the unemployed and their real and pressing needs, sorry, the cupboard is bare. I cannot accept that, and neither can my colleagues.

We will be standing to support this motion when it comes to a vote, and I can only hope that when the time comes, the government will recognize the need for this measure and support it as well. It is extremely important that people have access to their EI as soon as possible.

I can say that the NDP will be supporting this motion. The Bloc will be supporting it because of course it is a Bloc motion. I can only hope that the Liberals and Conservatives can support it as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, for introducing Bill C-241.

This is the sort of bill that would provide real, invaluable assistance to tens of thousands of workers who have lost their jobs or unfortunately will lose them because of the serious economic crisis we are going through.

Over the years, workers who lose their jobs have suffered countless injustices.

Do we need to remind this House that the percentage of unemployed workers who receive employment insurance has shrunk from 84% to 46% in the past 20 years?

Do we need to remind this House that Liberal and Conservative governments have siphoned off more than $57 billion belonging to workers? And that this money will likely never be returned?

In light of this, the waiting period only adds insult to injury for the unemployed, at a time when what they really need is a helping hand from the government.

What exactly is the purpose of the waiting period?

It is very simple: this is nothing more and nothing less than a way of punishing people for losing their jobs. Let us keep in mind that in order to draw EI benefits, a person has to have fallen victim—and I emphasize that word—to a layoff that has nothing to do with failure to perform, and even less to do with voluntary departure. These are people who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves without a job between one day and the next.

So what exactly does the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development want to punish them for?

Another aberration, and again according to the minister, the reason for the waiting period is that this is supposedly an insurance, like other kinds of insurance, and all commercial insurance does include a deductible before one gets any pay-out.

I have never heard such an unfortunate expression of cynicism in this House. In comparing the state to a business, this government is demonstrating what little empathy it has for the less well off members of society. By denying its social role, by virtue of which it is supposed to redistribute wealth rather than contributing to the inequalities, it is demonstrating a doctrinaire and ideological vision that is totally inappropriate.

But let me get back to the bill from my Bloc Québécois colleague who, on the other hand, is demonstrating a real understanding of the difficult situation in which workers who lose their jobs find themselves.

It must be understood that it is not a matter of adding two weeks of benefits, but merely of changing the start date of payments, so that unemployed workers are not in an untenable situation for the first two weeks.

According to Human Resources and Skills Development estimates, such a measure would cost some $900 million. Nine hundred million dollars is far less than the $57 billion confiscated—to avoid using unparliamentary language—from working men and women.

So $900 million would be plowed back into the Canadian economy, as the government itself admits in its assessment of the economic spinoffs from EI-related measures in the last budget.

In this period of recession, that means $900 million which would benefit not only the unemployed workers but also the businesses where they would spend the money they received.

When a person loses his job, and his sole source of income is EI benefits, it is rather a rarity for his first reflex to be investment, contrary to what the Prime Minister implied in a CBC interview during the last campaign.

What interpretation can one put on the scandalous comment he made at that time that Canadians should look on the bright side and take advantage of the weakness of the stock market to buy some stocks?

This kind of behaviour unworthy of a Prime Minister shows us just how profoundly disconnected this Conservative government is from the harsh reality that this crisis has created for hundreds of thousands of workers and their families.

Bill C-241 would provide some relief. This measure, simple yet concrete, efficient and direct, has been called for by dozens of groups representing workers' interests and by unions as well.

This is a perfect opportunity for the government to show goodwill and openness with regard to one of the greatest injustices ever committed by this government.

I invite the members opposite to give us their support so that this bill can be passed as quickly as possible.

The sooner this bill receives royal assent, the sooner the unemployed can receive the benefits to which they are entitled, those they have been paying into week after week, month after month, year after year.

When they pay their premiums, they do not skip two weeks. They cannot decide to stop paying for two weeks of the year. They have to pay every week.

Why should the government force them to wait two weeks before they can access their money?

And I must emphasize the word “their”, because apparently, previous governments, like this one, did not seem to understand this nuance, although it is fundamental, between the government's money and that of unemployed workers.

Yet government members fully understand, for instance, the difference between money they receive as salary and money paid to them by the House of Commons to carry out their responsibilities as MPs, for example. These are two different accounts, completely separate, that have nothing to do with each other, just as public accounts have nothing to do with the money paid by contributors to the system.

Fortunately, the government listened to the Bloc Québécois, which has always stood up to defend workers. Yes, it is thanks to the Bloc Québécois that the Conservatives agreed to separate those two accounts. It is thanks to the hard work of my colleagues who tirelessly denounced the deficiencies in the system.

I would like to talk about the contributors' money for a moment. It is truly appalling that in 2006, barely 64% of those who paid into the system were eligible for employment insurance. That is less than two thirds. And we are talking about workers who, I repeat, pay into the system week after week. The fact that the system is so inaccessible is positively scandalous, since, although they finally agreed to separate the employment insurance account from the federal treasury after years of pressure, they have definitely not done anything to improve the pitiful coverage provided to workers.

But, once again, as I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois was there to throw a lifeline to this government, which is sinking further every day into the depths of indifference. However, as a last resort, we especially want to throw a lifeline to the workers, and let us hope they do not have to wait two weeks for it.

In closing, I would like to congratulate my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague on his foresight and his efforts to really do something for unemployed workers.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to rise and speak in opposition to Bill C-241 proposed by the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

I can assure my hon. colleague and all members of the House that his concerns for the plight of unemployed workers are shared by all members of the government, including this member. In fact, I am sure there is not a single member in the House from whatever party who is not equally concerned with the needs of laid off workers and their families. Each and every one of us has stories of hardship in our own riding. All members of the House are determined to do whatever we can to help our constituents.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources previously said during this debate, one of the things that came up constantly through the government's consultations was that EI benefits needed to be lengthened in order to provide greater assistance to those facing long-term challenges in looking for work. That is why the government's economic action plan has provided that for the next two years we will make available nationally the five weeks of extended EI benefits that had previously been available through a pilot project only in regions with the highest unemployment. The government will also increase the maximum duration of benefits to 50 weeks, up from the current 45.

As a result, 400,000 Canadians could benefit from these changes. These measures will provide financial support for a longer period of time to unemployed Canadians who would otherwise have exhausted their benefits. This means unemployed workers will have more time to seek employment while still receiving benefits from the employment insurance mechanism.

It is my opinion, and I believe the opinion of members on this side of the House, that this approach better suits the needs of Canadians than simply eliminating the two week waiting period. The fact is that during these uncertain times many people will be off work for longer periods of time. That is where our EI help needs to be targeted and that is where this government has targeted.

To address the most pressing needs of workers today Canada's economic action plan is investing $8.3 billion for the Canada skills and transition strategy. To ensure that more Canadians could access the training and skills upgrading they need to land the jobs of the future, our government has invested unprecedented amounts in training programs.

These investments will help 160,000 people, including long tenured and older workers, get retrained to find a new job and put food on the table for their families. The government will also help those who normally would not qualify for employment insurance access to training they need to re-enter the workforce.

Ensuring that our country has the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world is vital for our long-term economic recovery. Supporting the development and training of unemployed workers will keep the Canadian economy growing and our communities prospering. Equally important, with the right training, people can get good jobs and have better opportunities for themselves, their families and their future.

We listened to the concerns of many employers and also employees. This is why the government is freezing EI premium rates for 2010 at $1.73 per $100. This is the same rate as 2009 and is projected to provide $4.5 billion in economic stimulus.

To help companies and employees adapt to the current economic downturn we are also extending the duration of work sharing agreements by 14 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks. This will enable Canadians to continue working while companies adjust to a temporary slowdown and recover.

To complement this measure we are also proposing to increase access to work sharing agreements through greater flexibility in the qualifying criteria. This measure will help many Canadians stay working through these uncertain economic times.

The government has weighed the options and decided to focus our resources on helping workers and families that need help the most. Our actions will provide more support to Canadians for a longer period of time, something that this bill will not do.

It is clear that the government has listened and responded to the needs of Canadian workers and their employers to enable them to get through this rough economic patch as quickly as possible.

Like all elements of the government's economic action plan, these improvements in investments will help Canadians weather the current economic downturn and come out stronger than ever.

Therefore, with all due respect for the good intentions that this bill attempts to portray, I urge all members of the House to defeat this bill. Instead, I call on all parties to work together with the government to advance Canada's economic action plan, the real long-term solution to our current challenges.

In closing, Canada's economic action plan will help more Canadians for a longer period of time with much more lasting benefit. I think that deserves wholehearted support by all members of this honourable House.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thought we were at the adjournment debate, but there are two minutes left.

The hon. member for Gatineau has two minutes to speak.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, these two minutes are very important. The more we talk about this, the better. I am convinced that at the end of my speech, more members will be thinking about voting for Bill C-241, which aims to remove the waiting period.

It is important to understand that the two week waiting period at the start of the employment insurance benefit period means that benefit recipients have to go without this income. We are talking about first aid. Even though the government is adding five weeks at the end of the benefit period, not everyone gets to that point. People need assistance from the government at the beginning of this difficult time. It is very important to understand that people receiving employment insurance need this help to take care of their own immediate needs and those of their family members.

It is not because the federal government lacks money that we cannot go ahead with this. It is a question of political will.

I will conclude by saying that $54 billion has been pinched from the employment insurance fund. This bill would cost $900 million. The money is available. We need to help workers and eliminate the two-week waiting period.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The House resumed from February 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on February 26, 2009, concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), standing in the name of the member for Brome—Missisquoi. I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary, as well as the member for Joliette, for having brought this issue to the attention of the chair.

Bill C-241 seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act by removing the waiting period that precedes the commencement of benefits after an interruption of earnings, and repeals provisions that refer to that waiting period.

At issue is whether the removal of the waiting period during the benefit period would require additional funds being disbursed from the consolidated revenue fund, or as a result of legislative changes flowing from the 2008 budget, from a separate account administered by the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

This question is of critical importance, since matters related to the appropriation of moneys outside the consolidated revenue fund do not infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown and therefore do not require a royal recommendation.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary argued that the bill should be accompanied by a royal recommendation since it would require the expenditure of funds in a manner not authorized under the Employment Insurance Act. He further pointed out that the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development estimated that the removal of the two-week waiting period could cost as much as $1 billion per year.

The member for Joliette for his part, felt that the bill did not need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation since it does not have to do with monies within the control of the Crown but instead with monies in the account administered by the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. His position was based in particular on a ruling made on October 3, 2005 concerning C-363, which had to do with the use of the surplus in the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reserve fund. The Speaker ruled at the time, on page 8294 of the Debates, that:

The transfer of monies from the CMHC reserve fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund—or in this case to the provinces—is not a matter relating to the appropriation of monies from the Crown. Therefore, Bill C-363 does not infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.

The Chair has carefully examined Bill C-241, as well as the arguments put forward by the parliamentary secretary and the member for Joliette. It should be noted at the outset that subsection 77(1) of the Employment Insurance Act makes it clear that EI benefits are disbursed from the consolidated revenue fund. It states:

There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and charged to the Employment Insurance Account

(a) all amounts paid as or on account of benefits under this Act;

As the member for Joliette mentioned in his point of order, it is true that the Budget Implementation Act, 2008 made certain amendments to the Employment Insurance Act in addition to creating the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

The object of the Board was, in particular, to set the premium rate under section 66 of the Employment Insurance Act and to maintain a reserve in accordance with that section. The specific purpose of the separate account in question is to make it possible to reduce premiums. There is no provision for using the account to pay for additional outlays that could result from eliminating the waiting period for the payment of benefits. The amendments to the Employment Insurance Act specified, among other things, the conditions for any interim payment to or by the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It is important to note that these amendments did not remove the EI Account from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Therefore, it is clear that despite the creation of a new Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, the payment of benefits to eligible workers continues to be made from the consolidated revenue fund through the EI account. Consequently, the chair is of the opinion that the provisions of Bill C-241 would authorize a new and distinct charge on the public treasury. Since such spending is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation, I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form, unless a royal recommendation is received.

Today, however, the debate is on the motion for second reading, and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

On debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak today on the bill which proposes to remove the two week waiting period required presently by the employment insurance program.

The EI program is a key element of Canada's social safety net. It enables Canadian workers to better adjust to labour market challenges and changes, and it acts as an economic stabilizer for our country. That being the case, we need to give some fairly careful and deliberate thought to any changes to the program so that we do not rush into it. We want to avoid rash moves that we might later regret.

One of the best ways of doing this is by basing changes to the EI program on hard empirical evidence and by conducting a pretty sound analysis of that evidence which takes into account the likely labour market impacts and the costs of the measures under consideration. It is only then that we can be sure that the changes will improve the program, not harm it or make it less efficient or less helpful than other alternatives. Such a disciplined, fact based approach is especially important during the current economic downturn where it is essential to avoid those kinds of missteps that might lead to a bad situation and make things worse.

I mentioned the matter of cost. The bill does have a significant cost associated with it, over $1 billion per year in fact. Mr. Speaker, you just made a ruling with respect to the issue of the $1 billion. During the first hour of debate, even the Bloc member for Gatineau agreed that implementing this legislation would cost huge sums of money.

Given that we are talking about substantial sums of money, it is critical that we ensure that any future changes to the employment insurance program are properly costed and assessed versus other options or possibilities.

That being said, I believe that this proposal before us today is not where we should be focusing our efforts. This government has in fact been very busy from the very first day in office helping Canadians and working to improve the EI program and its ability to help Canadians.

For example, we increased eligibility for EI compassionate care benefits by expanding the definition of ”family member” to include a wider range of individuals. I had a number of calls from constituents asking for that in advance of making that change, and affirming and commending us for having so done after that change was made.

We are improving the management and the governance of the EI account through the establishment of the Canada employment insurance financing board, a federal crown corporation that will report to Parliament through the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and be responsible for EI financing.

We are testing new approaches along the way through a number of ongoing pilot projects which seek new and better ways to help Canadians and respond to the changing economic conditions.

We are also doing many things to ensure that Canadians are getting their EI benefits as soon as possible. We have allocated an additional $60 million for faster EI processing which includes hiring additional staff.

Beyond this we have taken many steps to meet the increased demand and serve Canadians better. These steps include hiring or recalling additional employees and retirees across the country, redistributing the workload to increase speed and efficiency and to help maintain consistent service levels all across the regions of Canada, increasing overtime, increasing the level of automation of claims processing, and opening EI call centres on Saturdays.

Through these measures the department has processed significantly more claims nationally this year than over the same period of time last year. We continue to take action to meet the increasing demand. All of this brings me to the bill before us today.

To begin with, this is just one of a number of private members' bills relating to the EI program currently on the order paper, each with its own different recommendations for changing this or that feature of the program, most without any reference to the larger labour market issues or the other proposals put forward by opposition members. Such an ad hoc approach is not an efficient way of addressing such a large and complex program as the EI program is. It is not wise to consider many different recommendations separately without looking at the combined impact on workers and employers who pay the EI premiums and rely on the program.

That is why the government is pursuing a broader based approach aimed at doing three things: creating jobs, preserving jobs and helping those who have been unfortunate enough to lose their jobs and are trying to re-enter the workforce. That broader based three-pronged approach involves several components, including helping Canadians participate in the labour market by investing in skills upgrading and injecting a significant stimulus into our economy.

That approach is outlined in the very good document, our economic action plan, which seeks to protect Canadians during the global recession and invest in Canada's long-term growth through the investment of an unprecedented $8.3 billion in the Canada skills and transition strategy, aimed at supporting workers and their families. It increases funding for training delivered through the employment insurance program by $1 billion over two years under the existing labour market development agreement so that provinces and territories can train an additional 100,000 EI eligible individuals, and to help workers while they are looking for work, we are providing nationally the advantages of an extra five weeks of benefits currently offered as part of a pilot project that until now have only been provided in specific regions with high unemployment.

The maximum duration of benefits available under the EI program has been increased by five weeks, from 45 to 50 weeks, which is significant. It is estimated that this extension alone will benefit 400,000 Canadians in the first year alone. In my opinion, this is money very well spent.

To my mind, we should be investing in those who need it the most, namely, those Canadians who have been out of work for an extended period of time who are coming up against the end of their benefits. An extra five weeks will go a long way to help Canadians who otherwise would be facing further uncertainty.

Requiring a two week waiting period is prudent, and it keeps resources focused on those in greater need of support.

On this point, Mr. David Dodge, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, had some interesting comments. On December 18, Mr. Dodge appeared on the CTV Newsnet program, Mike Duffy Live. When asked whether eliminating the two-week waiting period for EI was an expenditure worth making, Mr. Dodge responded forcefully. He said, “The answer is no. That would probably be the worst waste of money we could make...because there's a lot of churn in the labour market”. Mr. Dodge also said, “That two weeks is there for a very good reason...the real issue is that some of these people are going to be off work for a rather long period of time”.

We agree with the comments of the former governor of the Bank of Canada. The fact is that during these somewhat uncertain times, many people will be off work for longer periods of time. That is where our EI needs to be targeted, and that is where we have targeted it.

Our government shares the concern of the member for Brome—Missisquoi for the challenges facing unemployed Canadians. However, in our efforts to make a real difference in the lives of Canadians, we need to ensure that the policy decisions we make are well thought through and are in the best interests of those we are trying to help.

Just as an aside more than anything, I should comment on the remarks made by the Liberal member for Cape Breton—Canso in respect of Mr. Dodge's statements. The member said that it was something that Mr. Dodge probably has not had to experience, at least not for some time.

I am not certain that we should be dismissing the judgments of wise people like that, with great amounts of experience with our economy, highly respected voices, simply because they have not recently experienced the precise matter under discussion. I would venture to guess a lot of members around this House have not had to experience directly some of the things that we discuss in this House and their contributions are no less important for that particular reason.

The approaches we take must be guided by hard facts and sound analysis. As a responsible government, that is what we are doing.

In closing, we all know that in the challenges that Canadians face in these uncertain economic times, particularly as unemployment rises, our government has already taken unprecedented steps to help Canadians by extending EI by an extra five weeks, by increasing the maximum benefit period to 50 weeks, and by expanding the work sharing program, for example. I could mention other things as well. That said, we will continue to monitor the current EI system to ensure that the program is working and responding effectively to our ever-changing economic circumstances.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill. I congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, who has brought this bill forward.

I had the chance to get to know the member a little bit a couple of years ago when I travelled with him. He is a very civilized and decent person who obviously has a very keen social conscience. We had a chance to talk about social housing and some of those investments we need to make, and his concern extends beyond that in a lot of areas. Obviously EI is one area.

He reminds me a little of his party's official critic, the member for Chambly—Borduas, who is also a very decent and civilized passionate advocate for the unemployed. We may not agree at all times on all issues, but he is sincerely concerned about the people who need help, and those are the unemployed in this country.

I would be remiss if I did not say that the member for Brome—Missisquoi has a wonderful partner as well. My wife likes her very much. I pass on my regards to her, should she be monitoring what he is doing tonight.

The member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin referred to the comments made by the member for Cape Breton—Canso about Mr. Dodge. I have a huge regard for David Dodge, but I think my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso was entirely right. What he actually said was, “I bet it has been quite some time since Mr. Dodge had to walk in the back door, look at his wife who is trying to feed four kids and wonder where the next quart of milk is coming from”. It is not an insult to Mr. Dodge; it is just a simple fact of life. It is our job as parliamentarians not to reflect just our own views, but the views of the people we represent. A lot of those people are hurting. They have been hurting for some time, but they are really hurting right now.

This country's social infrastructure is the only thing that is saving a lot of people from an even worse time. It is our job in this place and in committee to make sure that we bring forward legislation that reflects that. Therefore, I support my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi on this bill. I am not suggesting that this is the answer to the employment insurance system. There is a whole host of ways that we can make the EI system more robust, but we have got to send a message to the government that more needs to be done.

Our EI system has been changed in the last number of years. I am not here to defend those changes, nor am I here to say that those changes were not necessary. They were a reflection of the times we went through. Now we are into a recession that is very, very different and a lot of people are hurting.

The history of the EI system was such that it really was borne out of the Great Depression, by Mr. Bennett, first of all, in 1935 and then it was brought back in 1940. It started off mainly for blue collar workers. It was expanded in the 1970s and the 1980s. At one point in time over 80% of people in this country who were unemployed had access to employment insurance. There were changes made starting in 1990. Also in 1990 the federal government stopped making contributions. It no longer contributed to EI. It was now contributed to by employers and employees. The system has gone through some changes. In 1995 there were further changes made to the EI system.

We cannot compare 1995-96 to 2008-09. In 1995-96, we were coming out of a Conservative recession; now we are heading into a Conservative recession. The recession is similar, but the perspective is different. Back in 1995-96, we were looking at increasing job opportunities for Canadians. The issue then was not stimulus. I did not hear anybody in 1997 say we needed more stimulus. What I heard was that our deficit and debt are out of control.

Canada was a laughing stock. The Economist referred to Canada as a third world economy. We had to do something. Changes were made. Even though the employment situation was not too bad in the 1990s, there were areas of seasonal and high unemployment. When that became obvious, pilot projects were put in place to account for that in the EI system. We also brought in maternal parental benefits.

There is no question that we are now entering a recession for which this country is ill-equipped. We have to do something. We are talking about stimulating the economy.

Infrastructure is important, but when we look at infrastructure projects, we have to look at physical infrastructure and we have to look at social infrastructure. There are lots of economists, I would dare say most, who would say that the best stimulus for an economy is to invest in people, people who actually need the money. The people who get EI, who have lost their jobs, will spend that money. They have no choice. Learned economists, such as Ian Lee from the Sprott School of Business, say that this is the best way to get money into the economy. It is good for the individual. It is good for the economy. So, what do we do?

The government sent great signals in January that there were going to be big changes to EI. We now have five extra weeks and some money for training. Five extra weeks are important. That was part of many private members' bills in the House, but it is only one piece out of many. There is the whole issue of access and there are large parts of this country where people do not have access to employment insurance. There is the two week waiting period that my colleague has brought forward in the bill today. We can increase the rate of benefits or increase the maximum insurable earnings. We could use the divisor rule, use the best 12 or 14 weeks to determine how people qualify for EI.

We could look at the issue of increasing further the rate that people could actually earn while on EI without getting their benefits clawed back. We could also look specifically at the length of benefits, the duration. However, whatever we do needs to be a complex and sincere attempt to say that we have to address the needs of Canadians who through no fault of their own are losing their jobs in this economy.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has referred to EI in ways that I think are insulting to people who have to draw employment insurance. When asked why she was not doing more to improve EI, she said she did not want to make it too lucrative and she did not want to pay people not to work. That hearkens back to a previous day, to the Reform Party of the 1990s and its views of how employment insurance should be. That is alarming.

We also have the issue of delays in processing EI. If people are out of work, they do not know if they qualify for EI. They assume they do because they have paid into it, but in some cases they do not even find out for weeks. The standard had been 28 days that 80% of claims would be processed.

On November 27 last year in the House I raised the issue of delays in processing of EI. On December 19 I sent a letter to the minister asking for her attention to this very important issue. On February 27 I received a response. I raised the issue in 2008 and received a response in 2009. The opening line in the letter from the minister to me is, “I'm writing in response to your letter of December 19, concerning the processing time of employment insurance claims. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying”.

I sent a letter to the minister saying there are delays and she sent me a letter three months later saying she is sorry there were delays. She does not have to apologize to me, but she should be apologizing to the people in this country who are not getting the response that they need to a circumstance that is clearly not of their own making, which is that they are unemployed.

Last year the Prime Minister of the country said “no problem”. Instead of dealing with the worsening economy, he called an election. In the fall, instead of dealing with the worsening economy, he brought in an economic update when everyone in the country knew that we needed economic stimulus and political stability. He had it reversed. He gave us political stimulus with that economic update. Then in January, instead of fully solving the problem, Conservatives came in with five weeks and some money for training.

Who thought that was not enough? Obviously, the labour unions who advocated for their people said that is not enough. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives who advocated for enhanced, more robust EI, said it was not enough. Even the C.D. Howe Institute said it was surprised that more was not done to enhance access to EI. So, it is everyone in the country except for about 150 seats on the other side. Everyone else knows there is a problem. We have to do something to address this and get serious about helping Canadians who are out of work through no fault of their own.

I stand here in support of my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi and I will be supporting the bill when it comes to a vote to send a message to the government that it has to get serious about employment insurance, specifically for people who deserve better than they are getting from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the member for Brome—Missisquoi for his bill dealing with employment insurance and the waiting period. It is not the first time that we have debated this issue in the House. Personally, I have brought this issue forward on several occasions. We are talking about the two-week waiting period. A lot of people do not understand what it really means. In my area, they know what it means. It is not a two-week period during which an unemployed person is waiting for a cheque, but a two-week period for which such a person is not entitled to EI benefits.

I cannot believe some of the things I am hearing here. The member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin says that we must respect the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Dodge, that he is an honourable man. Indeed he is an honourable Canadian, like everyone else. However, he missed the boat when he made that comment. I also want to echo the comments made by the member for Cape Breton—Canso when he said that it seems that Mr. Dodge never missed a paycheque. He would have people believe that they have to wait two weeks before receiving EI benefits, but this is not what it means at all. We are talking here about a two-week period for which people will receive no benefits. It is a penalty.

The Conservatives are saying that it is better to give five weeks at the end. Let us set the record straight. The Conservatives think that if they add five weeks at the end, by then people will have found a job and they will never benefit from these additional five weeks. This means there will be no cost to the government. It is all nice and dandy to speak on behalf of workers, but we should ask the CLC, which represents them, or construction workers, whether it is better to have five additional weeks or to remove the two-week waiting period, or penalty.

Just think about those who work for minimum wage, or for very low wages, and who are laid off, as is the case back home with workers in fish plants, who are going to get 55% of their salary. This is already a financial burden for their families, and the government then deprives them of two weeks of benefits. That is where the problem is, at the beginning of the period. This affects seasonal workers in the forestry or tourism industry, who are laid off every year. After August 15, there is not much tourism in Acadia. When we are finished celebrating, after August 15, parents get ready to send their kids back to school, and some people lose their job.

I hope Mr. Dodge is listening, or that he will hear about it. I do not agree with him. With all due respect, I do not agree with him. Companies are also facing the problems generated by the economic crisis. According to the Conservatives, we have to determine how we can help large companies that were not properly managed. We can see what is happening now. The government is bending over backwards to help them. It does not impose a two-week waiting period on them. It does not punish them. Rather, it gives them money immediately to save their skin. But when it comes to workers, if we gave them money immediately, it would, according to the Conservatives, encourage them to rely on employment insurance benefits. It is not the first time that I have heard this comment.

The worst case of hypocrisy concerns the Liberal members who spoke this evening. They say it is insulting to hear the Conservatives tell the workers that the reason they cannot give them money right away is because that would encourage them to say home. I have been sitting in this House since 1997. The Liberals used the same line when they were in power. We can check the record and read the speeches they made in this place. The Liberals used the same line. In fact, that is the line we get from senior EI officials. I heard the same thing said when the Liberals were in power. Now I am hearing it from the Conservatives. They are playing the same tape, saying the same thing.

The Liberals are telling us that what they did back in 1996 was right because there was a deficit, which is different from a recession. Families affected by job losses suffer a terrible deficit. The Liberals attacked the workers in 1996 by making cuts to the EI program.

To eliminate the country's deficit, they stole from the workers, those who lost their jobs and the needy families. The Liberals did pay down the debt and achieve zero deficit, but they did so on the backs of the workers. Now, they have the hypocrisy to stand here and blame the Conservatives, but for different reasons. That makes no difference when, at the end of the day, workers lose their jobs. What matters is those families. The Liberals say that there was no economic crisis in those days. I am sorry, but we in Atlantic Canada had an economic crisis a while back. In 1992, all our fish shops and plants closed. We lost the cod fishery and the redfish fishery.

No economic crisis in my part of the country? We had our own crisis in the Maritimes and at the time, they said we were a bunch of lazy slackers and that we did not want to work. That is why the Liberals made cuts to employment insurance. That is why the Conservatives supported that decision. They have always treated us like a bunch of lazy slackers. People from our part of the country are leaving and going to work in northern Ontario, in Oshawa and Hamilton; they are going to work in Alberta, in Fort McMurray. People like Doug Young treated us like slackers. Those people said they were going to deal with people who abused employment insurance. Those people were Liberals.

The Conservatives are no better today. In the midst of this economic crisis, they are telling us that adding five weeks of EI benefits will satisfy workers. It is shameful and unacceptable. We are talking about people who are losing their houses, families who have nothing left to eat in the refrigerator. There is not a single member here who will lose his or her pay at the end of the week. Mr. Dodge has never lost his pay. Consider a husband and wife who both lose their jobs at GM and will have no income for two weeks, and on the third week, will receive 55% of $750. How dare anyone say they are not in trouble.

Consider the people in Quebec and the Gaspé. How dare anyone say they do not have problems. They are definitely not slackers and not lazy. All Canadians and Quebeckers are proud people. It is shameful to think that the reason the Conservatives do not want to pay them for the two week waiting period is because they are afraid that these people will actually receive benefits. It is time for this attitude to change. It is time we think about these people and not only about GM, Ford and Chrysler. We must think about the people involved.

When election time comes, the Liberals and the Conservatives are happy to get their votes, but the day after the election, they forget about the human beings who voted for them. Now they must think about the families who are losing their houses and the families who are heavily in debt to the banks. Instead of offering them loans that they would be able to pay back, the banks give them credit cards with 19% interest rates. The Liberals and the Conservatives must think about these people and start doing something to help ordinary Canadians. It is not an abuse of the system.

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour forgot to mention in his speech that the Liberals did the same thing to ordinary people who were in need. The Liberals did not care at all. In addition, changes were made in 1996, but the government had stopped contributing since 1992. At least, had the government been contributing, it would have had a reason to want to cut the program, but it was not even its money. The money did not belong to the government, and it does not belong to the Conservatives who will boast about balancing the budget and achieving zero deficit with money that belonged to others. Come on, that is highway robbery.

I was surprised by the Supreme Court's decision when it ruled that the government could do as it pleases with the workers' money. I realize that we have a legal system and that decisions are handed down by the courts, but we can nonetheless express the opinion that the judges made the wrong decision. I think they were wrong in this case. I am saying it in this place, I will say the same thing outside this place and I will tell them as well. They were wrong. That money belonged to the workers. On the books, there is a $57 billion surplus, but that is stolen money. That is the biggest robbery in Canadian history.

No one will ever admit that. Yet, attacks continue on workers who have lost their jobs and have no money to defend themselves, on the poor, on social assistance recipients, on anyone who cannot defend themselves.

We hope that the House will pass this bill which is good for the workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the House; it is just a shame that it has to be on this subject. We should have wrapped up discussions on this issue long before now given the awful situation in which the employment insurance system has placed unemployed workers.

Before getting to the heart of the matter, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi and congratulate him on introducing this bill. I also want to point out that the best gift we could give him would be for everyone joining today's debate in the House to tell him that they intend to support his bill. Why? Because today is his birthday. He has not only reached a venerable age, but sometimes we tease him by saying that he is now the patriarch of the House. However, to see him, one would have no trouble believing that he has lost none of his youthful vigour. Once again, I would like to wish him the best of birthdays, as well as good health and happiness, of course. One of his birthday wishes, something very important to him, is for the House to pass this bill.

This bill covers only one of the changes that should be made to the system. The good thing about this bill is that it will tell us just how sincere the members are when they say that they care about the people who lose their jobs and society's least fortunate. They say that the employment insurance system must be reformed, but when it is time to vote or to take a stand on a bill like this one, the Conservative members do not walk the walk.

This bill will cost very little because it would eliminate the two-week waiting period. These weeks would not be added to the number of weeks of benefits. People would receive benefits for the same number of weeks, but with this measure, they would begin to receive them from the very beginning. What is the advantage of that? When people lose their jobs, they suddenly have no income. In many cases, before anyone gets laid off, the company has already experienced some turmoil. Added to the tragedy of job loss is the fact that people have to wait for benefits. As we all know, the waiting period is unjustified and people collect nothing for the first two weeks.

This is a most relevant bill, especially in these difficult economic times. According to the OECD, Canada's unemployment rate will exceed 10% in 2010. It presently stands at 8%. In addition, last year, thus over the course of one year, 350,000 jobs have disappeared in Canada. The OECD estimates that 822,000 jobs will be lost by 2010, which means that there will be more than 2 million unemployed people in Canada. In the forestry industry alone, there are 122 communities in Quebec and 300 in Canada that have been affected by plant closures and layoffs.

The impact is rather dramatic and is felt quickly. In my own riding, working couples, sometimes with children, had the usual financial obligations and their entire income was already committed. After losing their jobs, it was not long before the two partners turned to the food bank.

Two successive governments have relied on this type of independent social safety net to fill the void left by legislation and the Canadian government. We rely on it. Take, for example, the food banks that are currently overtaxed and can no longer meet needs. More and more of these people, even the middle class, though quite embarrassed, are turning to food banks because they have no other option and must obtain food for their children and themselves.

Yesterday, the leader of my party and I met with the Canadian Teachers' Federation, who confirmed what we have observed and stated the following. The first ones to be affected by such a crisis are the children, and that is obvious at school. It is difficult to motivate the children to learn, some experience cognitive delays, receive lower marks, participate less in extra-curricular activities, even have lower career expectations, have gaps in attendance, and have a greater risk of being illiterate because, as I was saying earlier, lower attendance rates result in higher drop-out rates. Thus, children are especially vulnerable in these times.

When they talk about the crisis or the problems experienced by people who lose their jobs, nearly all the members of this House inevitably talk about poverty. There is a consensus that we must take action against poverty. Poverty has nothing to do with providence. There are conditions and factors that contribute to poverty, and an employment insurance system that does not meet its obligations adds to poverty.

One of my predecessors in this House made the point that this system became dysfunctional because of the way the employment insurance fund was used through the years. The role and purpose of the fund were radically altered. Of course, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the government, but on a technicality, saying that the government has the authority to legislate to levy taxes. Any deduction from Canadians' income is considered a tax. The fact that the government made the employment insurance fund part of the consolidated revenue fund also contributed to that conclusion.

But just because the Supreme Court of Canada says that what the Liberal and Conservative governments did was legal, that does not make it legitimate. What they did was illegitimate and deplorable, because they deprived people of benefits they had paid for during their employment, when money from the employment insurance fund would have let them provide for their families and pay their bills.

There was a reason why the previous government changed the name of the unemployment insurance fund to the employment insurance fund. The government deliberately renamed the fund in order to use it differently. This is deplorable, and it is a serious economic crime against people who have lost their jobs, against their families, against the regions concerned and against the provinces and Quebec.

In conclusion, the provinces have to shoulder the burden that should fall to the fund, and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the issue of EI with respect to Bill C-241.

Meeting the needs of Canadians in these increasingly uncertain economic times is a priority for our government. To determine these needs, our government engaged in the most extensive prebudget consultations in Canada's history. We listened closely to the concerns of Canadians, especially with regard to employment insurance. We listened and are taking action.

Through Canada's economic plan, we are taking unprecedented steps to create jobs, preserve jobs and to provide support to those who have lost their jobs and are now looking for work.

Our government understands that Canadians are worried about putting food on the table and finding work to keep their homes and provide for their families. That is why we have taken the unprecedented steps to support the unemployed, preserve jobs and retrain workers for the jobs of the future.

With respect to employment insurance benefits, we have extended, nationally, the advantage of an extra five weeks of benefits currently offered as part of a pilot project that, until now, was only provided in specific regions with high unemployment. In addition, the maximum duration of benefits available under the employment insurance program has increased by five weeks, from 45 to 50 weeks. It is estimated that this extension will benefit 400,000 Canadians in the first year alone.

We believe that this measure is a better option than removing the two week waiting period because it would help those most in need of additional benefits. While removing the two week waiting period would result in an additional payment of two weeks for claimants who do not use their full entitlement, it would not provide assistance to workers who exhaust their employment insurance benefits. Eliminating the two week waiting period simply means that their benefits would start two weeks earlier but would also end two weeks earlier.

Our additional weeks of employment insurance benefits would provide regular employment insurance clients with the assurance that, should they require it, they will have the financial support for a longer period of time while they pursue their job searches.

Exhaustion of EI benefits is a tough prospect to face. Providing additional support to unemployed Canadians who would otherwise have exhausted their benefits helps those who need it the most.

I would point out, too, that this proposed measure would be in addition to the automatic adjustments in the employment insurance program that respond quickly to changes in economic conditions. Through the variable entrance requirement, the current EI program has built-in flexibility specifically designed to respond automatically to changes in local labour markets.

The entrance requirements ease and the duration of benefits increase as the rates rise. These requirements are adjusted on a monthly basis to reflect the latest regional unemployment rates. This system ensures that the amount of assistance provided increases as the unemployment rate rises. Support flows to regions and communities that need it the most.

In fact, since October 2008, EI claimants in 32 of the 58 regions across the country can now access EI benefits with fewer hours of work while benefiting from the EI benefits for a longer period of time. For example, since October 2008, EI claimants in the region of Kitchener, not too far from my hometown, can now access an additional 13 weeks of benefits while working 4 weeks less to access these benefits.

We have also made significant efforts and investments to process the increasing number of EI claims so that employment insurance claimants can receive the benefits they need as quickly as possible. In this regard, we have allocated $60 million toward hiring additional staff and increasing capacity. We are redistributing workloads across the country and recalling recent retirees. We are also increasing overtime, opening employment insurance call centres on Saturdays and increasing automation of the claims process.

All of those actions are helping to ensure that unemployed Canadians and their families get the support they need in the fastest possible manner.

I also remind the House that we have not hesitated to test new approaches to make EI changes when they are proven to be warranted. I will give some of my own experiences in life to further explain how the five weeks are really impacting those Canadians we are trying to reach.

I heard my colleagues across the floor comment about certain parts of our employment insurance enhancements. I worked for an auto parts manufacturer, Westcast Industries in Southwestern Ontario, for many years. Like many other companies in the auto sector, it has felt the tougher times. When I started there in 2000, there were 353 employees. At the end of this month, that facility will be mothballed.

While I was in my riding over the past two weeks, I went out to various events and worked hard in the community. I ran into a number of my former colleagues, who unfortunately have been unable to find jobs. The first thing did was thank our government for extending those five weeks. They were not sure what lay ahead in the future, but they certainly appreciated the five weeks we added to the back end of their employment insurance.

Another fantastic example of what is working is the retraining. I have a number of former colleagues who fortunately look at the world as a cup that is half full, as do I. They have been able to get retraining. Some friends of mine who I used to work with are going through to be millwrights. They are exploring all sorts of different career options. It is a new chapter in their lives. This government has responded in many different manners. One of them is the $60 million recently announced to help process the claims as fast as possible.

I would also like to recognize our Service Canada workers and the great job they do. Our regional office is in Kitchener. The director, Ross Tayler, has his staff working around the clock, doing the very best job they can. I think it is important that we recognize those workers. They are taking time away from their families to ensure those dollars begin to flow in a timely manner to those who have just lost their jobs.

I was fortunate to be able to move on to a new position and a new career before the large number of layoffs occurred at the company for which I worked, but the weight and burden of the unknown of whether people's jobs will be there tomorrow is an extremely tough thing on their family and their psyche. The one piece out of this, which is so important, is the extra five weeks at the end of their employment insurance. They know they have an extra month and week, just in case they are unable to get that job. They are able to get out and continue to search for a job.

We have invested over $1 billion in training, which is excellent. This will allow those who have recently lost their jobs or who are currently in the workforce and are looking for a change in career to look to the new economies: a green economy, our information technology and our new high tech and skilled positions. Believe it or not, there are a number of positions in my riding in the aeronautical industry. Currently 50 positions are available in that area.

The programs we have put in place for retraining will allow people who have lost their jobs in a riding such as Huron—Bruce to get retrained and get those skills so they can gain new employment in new industries and sectors. That is why I am so proud of this government. I am so proud of the minister and her staff for how hard they have worked and for the consultation they have done with Canadians.

It is no coincidence that we have added five weeks to the end of the employment insurance process. It is no mistake that when I go out into my community, the additional five weeks of employment insurance is the first thing mention to me. They thank our government. It shows that our government is listening to Canadians and reacting in a timely matter. Good government is all about that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi now has a five minute right of reply.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I should have the support of the members across the floor, including, for example, the hon. member for Huron—Bruce, who just spoke, and the hon. member for Essex, both from ridings where many workers are losing their jobs at this time. It is incomprehensible. These members are going to be criticized by the workers in their respective ridings and will lose their seats in the next election.

Our bill to eliminate the two week waiting period is a crucial bill, since those two weeks are a crucial time for workers who have just lost their jobs.

When people have jobs, they are earning money, a salary, but probably not enough to be able to save money. That is what my colleague does not understand, because he is in a position to save money.

What happens to people who receive a salary that allows them to support their families and pay for their housing, but then suddenly lose their jobs? What happens is that those people have no money and do not receive any help from anyone to get through the first two weeks. Those are the worst weeks, because that is when they are going through the shock of having lost their job, although they must continue to feed their family and pay their rent or their mortgage.

The first two weeks are crucial. We are not against adding 5, 10 or 15 weeks of benefits, but that does not replace the first two weeks lost. That will never replace them. The Conservatives are saying they oppose this bill because it will cost $900 million. That is what the minister said. Now they are talking about $1 billion. That is completely false, because the bill would only move the benefit period forward, to when the recipients have just lost their jobs.

It is rather incredible that, just a week ago, we saw the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture) rise in this House on a question he had been asked specifically about the two week waiting period, to say that it was like cars. Unemployed workers are like cars. Frankly, that comparison is disdainful. That is a terrible thing to say, because it is not the same at all. Of course there is a deductible for a car, but it is an object. A car accident is not the same thing. If we do not have the money to have our car repaired, we simply do not do it right away. But unemployed workers need their money and there are more unemployed people right now, precisely because of the crisis.

We are calling for this because, during a crisis, it is important for people to have the time to get back on their feet and to be able to live properly during that time, to survive I might even say. They ought not to have to descend into poverty and have to ask for help from food banks. It is already hard on morale to lose one's job but if, on top of that, there is no help forthcoming in the first two weeks, that hits a family hard.

In closing—since I know I have only five minutes—this bill is a just one link in a chain. It does not reform employment insurance as a whole, because it reforms only one aspect. Obviously, there is plenty left to reform, but we have to start somewhere, and this first step is absolutely necessary.

It is said that Mr. Dodge was not in favour and that he was speaking for management. But the newspaper clippings—from Sherbrooke in particular—are interesting and refer to an unspeakable scandal. The only thing they keep referring to in the article is the two week waiting period. This is indeed an unspeakable scandal and that, in my opinion, is stronger than anything that Mr. Dodge could have said.

I am therefore calling upon all hon. members to be responsible and sensitive to the situation of the working men and women who have fallen victim to the global capitalist crisis. I am asking the members of this House to remedy this injustice and to vote in favour of this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 7:12 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 29, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

The House resumed from April 22, 2009, consideration of the motion that Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made Monday, April 27, 2009, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-241 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion.)

Vote #57

And the result of the division having been announced: yeas 138; nays 138

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

As hon. members are aware, in circumstances such as today's it is customary, for this Speaker at least, to vote in favour of a motion at second reading.

This is the third time I have had to vote on a second reading motion to break a tie, and on both previous occasions I voted yea, so today I will also vote yea and declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)