Bill C-280 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits)

This enactment
(a) by lowering the threshold for becoming a major attachment claimant to 360 hours, makes special benefits available to those with that level of insurable employment;
(b) sets the weekly benefit payable to 55% of the average weekly insurable earnings during the highest-paid 12 weeks in the 12-month period preceding the interruption of earnings; and
(c) reduces the qualifying period before receiving benefits and removes the distinctions made in the qualifying period on the basis of the regional unemployment rate.

Employment Insurance Act

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

moved that Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here today and deliver a piece of legislation in my name that will have a great effect on the lives of hard-working Canadians who have, through no fault of their own, found themselves unemployed. It is people like them who define some of the most difficult challenges we are facing in Canada given the current difficult economic times.

My bill attempts to set right parts of Canada's employment insurance system so that people will be eligible to collect benefits and those benefits will better suit their needs.

Bill C-280 is a relatively simple piece of legislation with two major objectives. It seeks to create a uniform level of entry for a person to make a claim of EI benefits by lowering the threshold to 360 hours for people in every region of Canada. And it seeks to award people benefits based on their best 12 weeks of earnings in the year prior to their claim instead of the current 14 weeks that are considered to set a benefit amount.

This week I had to pinch myself to see if I was actually dreaming when I heard the Liberals say over and over again that they are now interested in reforming employment insurance. We actually welcome their attention to this issue. They are uniquely positioned in this debate, since much of what we are attempting to repair is the damage that they inflicted on the system during their string of three majority governments in the 1990s.

That period is when their finance minister turned off the tap on employment insurance and turned EI into a tax on working people that fed their surplus budgets and helped them implement corporate tax cuts, a passion which is shared by their soulmates, the Conservatives.

I must say that I am overjoyed, as I am certain many unemployed workers are, that the Liberals have done a 180 degree turn and apparently now share our goal to see the threshold for entry lowered to 360 hours. This would end the regional distinction in the qualifying period and help EI flow to more Canadians who truly need it right now.

At present there are nine different sets of criteria in terms of hours worked for nine different ranges of regional unemployment rates. Workers in Canada may require anywhere from 420 to 700 hours of eligible work to be able to become a claimant of this benefit. This inequity is not suited for the kind of job losses we are seeing in Canada today. Regional unemployment rates are in flux and shift from day to day and week to week. EI needs to be able to better respond to this challenge.

We are hearing from groups as diverse as the TD Bank and the Caledon Institute that lowering the number of hours needed to qualify for employment insurance is the right thing to do to help us combat the global recession. They understand that employment insurance does not only serve the individual but the community and the country as well. They understand that there is more to an economy than balance sheets and mathematical equations. They know that the economy is in fact the people who make up our nation, our communities and our households. They view the economy in both the long and the short term, and they have come to recognize that the economic measure that will help support our goals and dreams for a better future is an employment insurance system that catches more people in its safety net, not less.

There will be those less enlightened perhaps, but not actually malicious who will contend that we cannot afford to make employment insurance more accessible. Of course we know this is not true. EI is actually running a big surplus which should be used to improve the program and ensure people have access to benefits. It is not meant to be used and should not be used to pay off the government's debts or deficits, contrary to the Conservatives' and the Liberals' beliefs.

There will be those who will argue that the government has already expanded the number of weeks a person can remain as a claimant in a direct response to these challenging economic issues. We know that these extra weeks that the Conservative government continues to trumpet have been put in place as a temporary stopgap and have been added to the end of the benefit period, where they are less likely to be collected. We have said in other debates that it would be better to remove the two week waiting period for new claimants and use two of those five weeks right away, but that is for another debate. What is clear is that we cannot afford to miss this opportunity.

There are plenty of left-wing supporters for this motion that we are debating today, but I am also interested in those who would not be considered of the left who are calling for the expansion of employment insurance as a means of stimulating the economy.

When the chief economist for Moody's credit rating service testified before the U.S. house committee on small business last July, he showed that apart from food stamps, the best bang for a government's buck was to ensure that unemployed workers had access to employment insurance benefits. To determine the effectiveness of differing stimulus measures, he compared their multipliers, an equation that gives a dollar amount for the economic activity created by government spending to stimulate the economy. His conclusion was shocking.

Typical right-wing solutions such as permanent tax cuts came in as losses, negative equations that saw the dollars spent fizzle in half or more. They were in fact drains on the economy. Infrastructure spending was quite good, with a multiplier of $1.59 for every dollar spent. The problem with infrastructure is the amount of time it takes to have the money flow through the economy.

The best way to get money into the economy immediately was through increased spending on employment insurance, believe it or not. With a multiplier of $1.64, it is a measure that performs well and what is more, it is an efficient stimulus. It flows directly to those in need and to the communities most affected by job losses.

New Democrats could not agree more. What we are saying here in Canada is similar. Our government is not hearing anything new from us today and we know that as a fact. The government received a prebudget submission which outlined these very points. It was not from the Canadian Labour Congress or some like-minded group that the government is accustomed to dismissing out of hand either. It was from the director of the MBA program of the Sprott School of Business.

This shows that the government is hearing calls for improvements to employment insurance from all sides of the debate. It is, interestingly enough, a unifying concept. Apart from increasing the number of people who are eligible to receive EI, this bill also hopes to improve the benefits received by people, such as seasonal workers, by reducing the number of weeks used to calculate the level of benefit from their best 14 weeks to their best 12.

This is a small change that will really help people who make most of their money in short periods of time. Seasonal workers are especially vulnerable to longer sampling periods to set their EI rates. Often they have short, intense periods of work during which they make the majority of their money. They may, however, work many more weeks at their jobs doing the maintenance work that is required to be able to engage in the short but lucrative periods that make these jobs worth doing.

This measure sets out to help recognize the special needs of the workers who do these types of jobs. It will help smaller and rural communities keep in place a workforce that allows them to employ people during their boom periods and weather the lean periods in between.

I have mentioned that I am pleased to see that the Liberals are now calling for the same entry threshold as I have set out in this bill and for which the New Democrats have been championing for many years now.

I can only hope they are not playing games with those who find themselves in hard times and that they actually will support this very legislation that reduces the qualifying hours to 360 and removes regional differences. However, I remain leery of commitments from that party, given the fact that I originate from the labour movement and I remember the Conservatives' about-face on anti-scab legislation. This very issue still resonates not only with me but with the thousands of brothers and sisters in the labour movement.

As for the Conservatives, it is hoped that we can hold them to their word when they made the commitment to make necessary changes to address the economic crisis as things evolve.

Given the number of job losses, sadly a number that keeps growing, is it not time that, contrary to the beliefs of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, the government needs to recognize that EI benefits are not lucrative and that it needs to take immediate action to rectify the problems the system has in terms of access to benefits for those who pay into it?

There is something fundamentally wrong when 1.4 million people are out of work and only 43% of them are able to receive benefits. Shame!

Given the way our manufacturing, forestry and mining sectors have been brutalized, surely the time to revisit our response to these challenges is upon us. It is time to recognize the need for fundamental change that will ensure those who have paid their premiums can actually access EI benefits when they fall on hard times.

I hope all parties in the House get behind the bill, as it will set about repairing a very worthwhile social program that has the potential to serve all Canadians at a time when all of us in this place are being looked upon for leadership and solutions to a unique crisis that will define this Parliament.

I would like to add a few of the comments that I have come across since the budget was implemented and the issues about the problems with EI.

I could quote Ken Georgetti, from the Canadian Labour Congress, who said:

People desperately need their government's help to protect and create jobs and to support the unemployed.

Mayor Miller of Toronto said:

We're quite concerned. The fact that the most vulnerable haven't been protected with appropriate changes to the E.I. program is very problematic for all cities.

The mayors and the reeves of these communities have all raised their concerns with regard to the changes to EI that need to occur. They have indicated that currently the fact that only 43% of people can actually have access to EI has been causing grave concern to them with regard to their welfare rolls. If people cannot access EI, they have to access welfare. With the two-week waiting period, those who can access EI actually end up on the welfare rolls anyhow because they are waiting for their cheques to come in.

The government seems to think it is okay to do that, that we can make people suffer at the beginning and just try to increase their rates at the end. However, at the end of the day, normally people will find work within 20 weeks and never have a chance to access those benefits.

I would like to quote a CanWest article, which reports:

Economists at TD Bank said Thursday that the federal government should make it easier for newly unemployed workers to receive benefits and should reverse changes it made to the formula that sets the premiums to be paid by employees and employers.

What is even more interesting is the comment that the article attributes to John McCallum on this very issue:

These are things we've been saying for a long, long time....

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I would like to remind the member not to refer to hon. members by their given name.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

The fact of the matter is that the Liberals say that changes have been needed for a long, long time. They certainly had not moved on them when they were in power, which leads us to wonder whether they will come through on the 360 hours.

Just on that note, I think it is extremely important to recognize that we actually do need the changes to EI and that this is a perfect time to debate the issue and to bring it forward so that we can make sure that people are able to support themselves during these tough economic times.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important initiative, of course, and I applaud the member for bringing it forward.

My riding is largely a forestry dependent community, and I know the member's riding has similar issues.

In my riding, the unemployment rate is actually tied to Vancouver's. I live on Vancouver Island. Talk about western alienation. Anybody west of the Rockies understands that Vancouver is very different from Vancouver Island.

The workers in my riding are expected to work far more hours than is realistic, because our unemployment rate is tied to the Vancouver labour market. I would like the member to comment on how the reduction in these hours would actually benefit forestry workers from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a double whammy on this that will actually benefit the workers. The 360 hours would be across the board. No matter where one lives in the country, all one would need is 360 hours to qualify for employment insurance. Reducing it and making sure that it is the best 12 weeks as opposed to the best 14 weeks will actually enhance their premiums.

On that note, I want to thank the member. I understand the problem with forestry, because the government has failed to act on forestry. I have a lot of forestry in my area. They have been calling for access to reasonable credit for quite some time. I can say that most of those people are now trying to access employment insurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. I know she is talking about her bill, but I would ask her if she supports the expansion of the work-sharing agreement by 14 weeks. It would help 80,000 to 90,000 people. I would ask her if she supports the extension of benefits by five weeks and the maximum benefits.

Does she support the enhanced training that would help approximately 170,000 to 190,000 people or more? Does she support those benefits that have been enhanced specifically in training and upgrading?

If she does support those measures, why did she vote against each and every one of them? Why did her party not support any one of them?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us look at this. Certainly we support initiatives that actually enhance employment insurance. The only thing is that the initiatives have to be very worthwhile. My understanding is that the five weeks the government has put in has been done as a stipulation. It hopes that not very many people will access those five weeks because they are at the end.

As I mentioned before, most people will actually use up maybe about 20 weeks of employment insurance before they find a job. It would have been much better if the government would have taken some of that five weeks and put it at the beginning and put an extra three weeks at the end, but it refused to do that.

With respect to the fact that we voted against the budget, the Conservatives are going to say that we voted against all the measures. It was not all the measures that we voted against; it was all the underlying stipulations they put in that they were trying to get us to vote for, such as removing pay equity for women or the fact that they have actually attacked workers by not allowing them their raises.

I want to thank the member for the question, but that is exactly why we did not vote for their budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate. First, let me say that I do appreciate the intention behind this bill. All members of this House share concern for unemployed Canadians and their families. Losing a job is hard on workers and on their families. Unfortunately, too many Canadians have had to endure this.

When we are discussing changes to the employment insurance system, what Canadians need is a plan that suits the changing economic circumstances and that complements what this government is doing to help Canadians and their families get through this difficult economic time.

Our government has taken action to improve the employment insurance system to help Canadian families. Let me remind the members opposite about some of the good things we have done for Canadians so far.

Through our economic action plan, we have invested an unprecedented $8.3 billion in the Canada skills and transition strategy. This strategy will strengthen benefits for Canadian workers through the EI system. It will enhance and increase the availability of training. It will also keep EI premiums frozen, ensuring that both workers and employers do not face increased job-killing payroll taxes during this time of economic uncertainty. This keeps that money in the economy and helps protect jobs.

We are taking other actions to protect Canadian jobs. Right now, over 93,000 Canadian workers are benefiting from our expanded work-sharing program. We have improved the work-sharing program by extending the duration of the work-sharing agreements by 14 weeks, to a maximum of 52 weeks, for the next two years.

In addition, we are making it easier to qualify for the program. Ultimately, more Canadians will be able to continue working while their company is experiencing a temporary slowdown.

Furthermore, this government's economic action plan includes a new initiative to extend EI benefits to long-tenured workers while they pursue longer-term training in a new profession or sector. This initiative, implemented with the provinces and territories, will allow workers who have worked in a single industry for a long time and have been permanently laid off to receive EI benefits to a maximum of 104 weeks while they pursue training to prepare them for the jobs of the future. This measure specifically helps Canadians who have paid into the EI system for many years and who have not had to use it until now. These workers deserve help that respects their abilities and experience, and that is what the government is delivering.

In addition to this support, we will also allow earlier access to EI benefits for eligible workers who have received severance packages, if they use some or all of that severance to purchase skills upgrading or training for themselves.

We are also acting to support unemployed individuals who are unable to qualify for EI benefits. To that end, we are investing $500 million in the strategic training and transition fund. This fund will benefit some 50,000 Canadians and their families.

The reality is that our government is taking unprecedented steps to help Canadians who have lost jobs through no fault of their own.

Through the economic action plan, we will help over 400,000 people benefit from an additional five weeks of EI benefits in the first year alone. Those extra five weeks will help those workers and their families who are hardest hit, who have not been able to find work, at a time when they otherwise would be facing exhaustion of their benefits.

We have also increased the maximum duration of EI benefits available under the EI program from 45 weeks to 50 weeks, again helping those Canadians who are out of work for a longer period of time. And it is not insignificant; it is 400,000 people.

These measures, I might add, are on top of the automatic adjustments in the EI program that respond to changes in economic conditions.

As members can see, our government is committed to helping Canadians through this economic downturn and is taking unprecedented steps to help Canadians get back to work. Never before has there been such a concerted effort to reach out and help Canadians, and that help is coming from this Conservative government.

We recognize the challenges faced by those who have lost their jobs in these difficult times. That said, we want to ensure that any action we take is effective in both the short term and the longer term. That is why we are monitoring the effectiveness of our measures to ensure that the EI system is working and responding effectively to the evolving economic circumstances.

Our economic action plan is providing additional support over the short term, which makes more sense than costly and permanent changes to the EI program, changes that could have unintended consequences on the labour market and the viability of the system over the long term.

While we do not question the good intentions behind this proposed legislation, the NDP's proposal is uncosted and does not take into account the greater long-term impact on the labour market. These proposals need to be considered within the context of who will pay for all of this. Consideration must also be given to how this proposal will impact on helping Canadians get back to work so they can get jobs to put food on the table and to provide for their families.

The Liberals do not have a plan either and that is obvious. The newly crowned Liberal leader decided over the weekend, at the Liberal Party policy conference, to adopt an NDP policy. Is that not most remarkable? The problem with the Liberals is they do not have any credibility on this issue. Let us take a look at the Liberal record on employment insurance.

On May 4, the Winnipeg Free Press said, “The Liberals were the architects of the distortions in the EI programs”.

On April 29, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives published a study that said, “The Liberals gutted EI in the 1990s”.

Two senior figures at the Caledon Institute, a think tank the Liberal critic often likes to cite, had this to say in the April 21 edition of the Toronto Star. They said that during the Liberal years:

—Employees had to work longer to qualify for benefits; payments were lowered; and the maximum duration of benefits was reduced. Many more of the unemployed could not work enough hours to qualify.

Those change were made when the country was still slowly recovering from an economic slowdown and when there were still many Canadians out of work. That is the Liberal record.

The reality is that during the Liberal time in government, unemployed Canadians were hit hard by both the economy and the Liberal government. The reality is the Liberals have previously voted against all the EI changes they say they support today. That is hypocritical.

During this economic downturn, among other things, this government has increased the duration of benefits, increased the maximum benefit period and expanded work-sharing and training programs. We are making improvements to the system to help Canadians and Canadians see that.

As I said earlier, our government is monitoring the situation closely. We are monitoring the effectiveness of the actions we have taken to improve the EI system. We want to ensure that the EI system is working and responding effectively to the evolving economic circumstances. As the economic circumstances are continually changing, we continue to consider how best to help Canadians in ways that are responsible, sound and affordable.

There is a good read on the CFRB radio station website, a popular radio station in Toronto, the city that both the Liberal and NDP leaders call home. The piece brought up a quotation attributed to G.K. Chesterton and John F. Kennedy. It says, “Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up”.

The opposition members simply want to tear down the fence posts without consideration of why those posts are there. We see this constantly. If they see a post they do not like, they propose to tear it down, just like that. The Liberals especially should know better, since they put in many of the posts themselves, particularly the ones they seem to dislike most just now.

This government will not simply decide over the weekend to adopt this or that policy, to knock out this post or that post. We have taken responsible action already. We are considering all of our options carefully to ensure that any actions we take to help Canadians will be responsible and done for the right reasons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-280. I want to congratulate my colleague for introducing it.

I have a few things I want to say, but I cannot let go unchallenged what the parliamentary secretary has read from his speaking notes, provided by some un-named person in the lobby, which he picked up on the way in here.

He talked about the cuts that were made in the 1990s. He is older than I am, so he is old enough to recall the circumstance of Canada back in 1993, when his former Conservative government skulked out of town with its tail between its legs, leaving a $48 billion annual deficit, a debt that it had built up. When Mr. Trudeau left, that debt was $200 billion. By the time that government was finished, it was $500 billion.

Maybe the people in the lobby are not as good as I thought they were at putting these notes out. He should know that the cuts began with Mr. Mulroney in 1990. It was in 1990 when the federal government walked away from EI and said that employers and employees could carry the whole weight. That government did not want any part of it. That was when those people were building up the deficit.

There are a lot of history books that can tell us the difference between 1995 and 2008, but I will tell the members the difference. Back then we were coming out of a Conservative recession into a Liberal recovery. We are now coming out of a Liberal recovery and into a Conservative recession. Back then there was not one person in the country talking about stimulus. People were talking about debt. We were being called a third world economy because we were so far in debt.

Changes were made. Some of us liked them and some of us did not. The fact is we had a lot of problems in the country that we had to be dealt with and that is what we did back in 1995-96.

Members of his party, his ancestors, including the current Prime Minister, did not think we went far enough. They wanted further cuts. The predecessor to the current Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said the cuts were not deep enough.

Let me come back to today. Instead of people talking about paying down the debt, as they did in the 1990s, they are now talking about stimulus. My colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing mentioned stimulus and Ian Lee from the Sprott School of Business. There are three major ways of stimulating the economy.

I see my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook, the very learned chair of the HRSD committee, is nodding in agreement with what I am saying. He is amazed at what the parliamentary secretary said. He cannot believe it.

If we look at the three major ways to stimulate an economy, one is to provide tax breaks. However, tax breaks stimulate the people who do not need the stimulus. According to the Caledon Institute, tax breaks in the last budget will go to people making $150,000, including my colleagues. We will get $483 in tax breaks. A single income person with two kids receives nothing. Is that stimulus? Most MPs do not even know what they pay in taxes except for the very month when they have to file. They are not going to spend the money.

The people who need the money are the people who have nothing else on which to live. They get the money and they spend it, and it is a 1.6 turnover in the economy. That is how an economy is stimulated. It is helpful to the people who need the money as well. It is way better than tax breaks and a much better return than infrastructure.

The parliamentary secretary talked about our leader adopting a new position. From January 29 on, our leader was not even officially the leader, but he was already talking about EI. He said, and I am quoting from the paper now, “If the government fails on these accountability tests, including employment insurance, a confidence vote could trigger an election”. He said that on January 29, some time ago. Now he has called upon the Prime Minister to implement a national standard for employment insurance with a temporary 360 hour threshold for eligibility.

A letter appeared this week in La Presse in Montreal, written by Pierre Céré, who is a champion of workers in Quebec. I will just quote a bit. He said, “The EI system must become a program that provides economic security and thus the dignity of workers who lose their jobs and who are temporarily unemployed. The only partisanship, as we know it, is in that fight. That is why we do not hesitate to acknowledge the position of Mr. Ignatieff and encourage him in this direction”. However. it is not only—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The member is a veteran of the House and he knows not to refer to other members by their given names.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought the Leader of the Opposition was an exception. He is such an elevated person. I apologize, it will not happen again.

The Canadian Labour Congress is calling for changes to EI. Armine Yalnizyan, from the CCPA, most recently indicated, “There is a widespread consensus across the political spectrum that the Employment Insurance Act should be changed to make the entrance requirements uniform across the country and reduce the eligibility threshold to 360 hours”.

The C.D. Howe Institute, the great champion of Liberal thought, said it was surprised the government did not do more to enhance access.

Susan Riley, of the Ottawa Citizen, said, “If the government was serious about helping the hardest hit, it would have opened access to employment insurance, along with extending benefits to those who were already covered”.

There are some amazing people who one would not normally think would support a change to EI. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which one would not think would be championing EI, indicated in its prebudget report to the finance committee that the access issue needed to be addressed. It even suggested that we needed to look at, perhaps temporarily, the two-week waiting period. The response from the government was, “We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it”. Who said that? The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said that on January 28.

Harris/Decima, which recently had the Liberals in the lead, indicated in a poll, dated March 30, that in every region of the country, across all regions, people believed the scope of employment insurance should be expanded in terms of coverage and length. It is not just what one might think of as the usual suspects.

Some people who have done a lot of work on this. The alternative federal budget had suggested a number of changes and had put some costing on it.

It seems like everybody believes that we have to change the system, that there needs to be access by people who need it. The only ones who seem not to believe it are members of the government, not their spouses though. We heard recently that the wife of the Minister of Finance had some issues with him, that EI should be improved, that EI was punitive to the province of Ontario.

The government, which prides itself on dividing Canadians, is now breaking up families. It is dividing families among themselves. The Minister of Finance is clinging vainly to the hope that nothing will be changed. His wife is usually right, in my experience. She is saying that it should be opened up, that it is not fair to Ontario.

It is very clear that something has to happen. This is not a light subject; it is a very serious one.

I will read an email I received, which I got a kick out of. It states, “I heard you on TV talking about EI (employment insurance) and I was impressed with your arguments. I have never been a person who believes in a lot of what you refer to as social infrastructure, whatever that is, but to me EI should be opened up, at least for now. Why won't the government do anything without being forced into it?”

That is a very good question. Last week the TD Bank made recommendations, The Chamber of Commerce, the C.D. Howe Institute, the CCPA, the CLC, the CAW, the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Conference Board of Canada, everybody who has looked at this are saying people are hurting. One would not think the government would be as blind to that as it is.

Canadians are hurting. People are living paycheque to paycheque, even when they are employed. Now they do not have jobs and they do not have savings. They have not had the benefit of a member of Parliament's salary or a big business salary. A lot of working people are going paycheque to paycheque. When they are put out of work, it is hard enough to have to wait two weeks, but then to be told they will not get EI at all is really shameful.

On top of that, we have heard about delays across the country. All my colleagues have heard about people who have had to wait longer than 28 days, in some cases 40, 50 or 60 days. The member from Madawaska—Restigouche, the member for Cape Breton—Canso and a number of Liberals in the House have raised this issue. It is a serious subject.

EI needs to be opened up. If we are not going to open it up now, when are we going to open it up? People have paid into it for years and they have the right to collect it. It is the very least that the government should for them. Instead of giving them access, it is giving them arrogance and that is no longer good enough. We need better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to be able to have an opportunity to speak today on C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

As you know, the Bloc Québécois defends the rights of workers who have lost their jobs with unequalled determination here in this House. Our desire to see a thorough reform of the employment insurance system is not, therefore, dictated by circumstances, such as a looming election, but is instead a constant. Since the founding of our party it has been our concern 365 days a year.

The employment insurance program is inadequate. We are not the only ones to say so. The OECD, the C.D. Howe Institute, the TD Bank, all of the labour congresses and workers' coalitions, and many others, are unanimous on the need to reform this program of worker protection, particularly in a period of economic crisis.

By beefing up this anemic program, the government would be killing two birds with one stone. First, it would be helping the hundreds of thousands of men and women who lose their jobs and find themselves ineligible for benefits and are therefore forced into the untenable position of having to find a new job in tough economic times. Second, as if the first point were not sufficient, we need to realize that EI benefits constitute one of the best ways to stimulate the economy, twice as much as any tax reductions, of course. Yet all that would be needed to significantly improve the employment insurance program is a mere fraction of the amount the government has distributed as income tax reductions.

I should make it clear from the start that I am absolutely in favour of the principle of this bill, as my opening remarks ought to have made clear. It contains a number of measures that we in the Bloc Québécois have been proposing for some time. I would, however, like to express at least some of the reservations I have about the bill.

Unlike the motion introduced in this House by the NDP on one of their opposition days, this bill does not include any measures to increase the rate of benefits to 60%, but rather maintains it at 55%. For the Bloc Québécois, such an increase is absolutely crucial and that is why we are suggesting that the committee take a closer look specifically at this matter and that the rate be adjusted to 60%.

In addition, concerning subclause 7.1, the bill refers to a relaxing of the eligibility criteria for people who have violated the rules of the EI system. We are in favour of such a measure, but the new criteria appear rather arbitrary. At the very least, clarifications are needed concerning how thresholds are established in the bill.

Apart from those two reservations, as I was saying, we fully support the principle of this bill. I would like to discuss the measures it proposes one by one.

First, setting the minimum eligibility threshold of 360 hours to qualify for regular or special benefits will be particularly beneficial to the workers who are currently unable to exercise their rights, even though they have paid into the system, day after day and week after week. At this time, that threshold varies between 420 and 910 hours. That is much too high, and that is the main reason why so many unemployed workers are excluded from the coverage offered by the system.

These rules penalize seasonal workers in particular, who experience the spring gap that some call a “black hole”, that is, that time of the year when they find themselves with no income, while they wait for their work season to return. The rules also penalize those who hold unstable jobs or work in non-standard employment. Many such workers are women, including single mothers who already have difficulty making ends meet, and who increasingly bear the brunt of these misguided policies.

With the number of hours set at 360, which the Bloc has long called for, an estimated 70% to 80% of unemployed workers could collect benefits, and the level of coverage would be returned to what it was 20 years ago. It has to be said, the most urgent difficulty with the employment insurance system is the coverage it provides to workers. In fact, in 1989, or 20 years ago, the claimant/unemployed ratio, used by everyone except perhaps the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, was 84%. Today, according to the most recent estimates from the chief actuary of the Employment Insurance Commission, it is 46%. What is the reason for such a dramatic drop?

We have no choice but to lay the blame at the feet of the Liberals who, in the 1990s, literally cut off access to the system by making the eligibility criteria so stringent that almost 40% of workers were excluded. In many cases, it was the same Liberals who today denounce the unfairness and express outrage after finally opening their eyes to the reality that they created. But as the saying goes, only a fool does not change his mind. Popular wisdom will now suggest that the fools have been joined by the Conservatives who, on the surface, despite the combined efforts of the opposition parties, do not seem to see the obvious: the employment insurance system is inadequate.

There are so many problems with the system, and that is why the member for Chambly—Borduas introduced Bill C-308, which would make major changes to the system to turn it back into what it is meant to be: a real insurance plan rather than a tax by some other name, as it was under the Liberals, or a way to punish the unemployed, as it is under the Conservative government.

One of the punitive elements in the system is the waiting period, which is absolutely unjustifiable because it is based on the idea that claimants are all potential fraudsters.

I want to make it clear that eliminating the waiting period would not mean paying out two extra weeks. It absolutely does not conflict with adding five weeks to the maximum benefit period. It would just eliminate the very long and very unnecessary two-week delay before people receive their benefits.

Imagine a worker who suddenly loses his or her job—that is not hard to do—and who has to wait 60 days for the claim to be processed—which happens all too often—and who then has to wait another two weeks before collecting his or her first employment insurance cheque.

The statements made this afternoon in oral question period by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development are totally incorrect. It is not true that 82% of contributors to the plan can receive employment insurance. In the latest report on employment insurance coverage, the department's figures were much gloomier. In fact, barely 68% of contributors had access to EI benefits. That is completely unacceptable.

The minister compared the employment insurance system to a private system, which is rather cynical because she reduced the state's role to that of a corporation motivated solely by financial gain.

Following that logic, it would mean that an insurer could decide not to compensate 32% of its clients. Nobody would stand for that kind of attitude. Such a company would be accused of scandal, fraud, theft and mean-spiritedness, and with good reason.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I can also add that all the witnesses we have heard since I have been sitting on that committee—all of them, without exception—have called for EI reform and a complete overhaul of the system, so that it will actually help them, especially in these tough economic times.

In closing, I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois has once again proposed an economic recovery plan. Our plan is costed, realistic and pragmatic. It would fix the holes in the social safety net, restore confidence, stimulate employment and investment, support Quebec and the provinces and stimulate strategic spending on things like measures to reduce oil dependency.

I invite all parliamentarians to read it. Unlike others, members of the Bloc Québécois do not hide when it is time to take a stand on ways to get Quebec and Canada through the economic crisis.

Our plan will reassure workers who lose their jobs by providing them with a more accessible and generous employment insurance program, and it will stimulate household spending by enabling workers who have lost their jobs to get the benefits they need to keep the economy going.

I believe that the measures in Bill C-280 will help achieve those same goals, so it is my great pleasure to support this bill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking and congratulating my colleague, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, for the work that she has done to bring forward this bill. It is something that we in the NDP are so proud to bring forward and to show leadership on behalf of so many Canadians who are living in such a difficult situation during these times.

This bill, that has been brought forward in this House, comes down to a fundamental question of justice. It is about ensuring that there is justice for people who have lost their jobs, not only as a result of this economic downturn but who lose their jobs even at the best of times, people who day in and day out work hard, pay into an employment insurance fund that they expect to be there when they fall on hard times.

The sad story here is that many Canadians are never able to access this fund. In fact, more than 50% of Canadians are unable to access a fund that they invested in time and time again. That is why we are proposing to deal with some of the major pieces attached to the employment insurance fund that would help and support more Canadians when they do fall on hard times and lose their jobs.

We are asking the government to implement a lowering of the threshold for claimants to 360 hours in order for them to be able to access EI. This is not only the right thing to do at this time of an economic downturn but this is the right thing to do at all times. This in fact reflects the challenges and the situation in which so many Canadians live.

I would like to talk a bit about some of the groups that stand to benefit particularly from changing the regulations of EI so that it is more accessible to them. For example, women are less able to access EI from coast to coast to coast, in part because they often find themselves in jobs where they are not able to accumulate that many hours, whether it is in service industries or part-time work.

It is what is referred to as the pink ghetto, the fact that many women end up working in jobs that, whether it is for lower pay or lower benefits, at the end of the day they are unable to accumulate the number of hours that would allow them to access a fund into which they have also paid.

The second point is seasonal workers. I am sure many of us in the House represent ridings in which much of the economic benefit comes from the hard work of seasonal workers. As the member of Parliament for Churchill, I represent many fishers who live across northern Manitoba, fishers who spend months out on Lake Winnipeg or on lakes all across northern Manitoba, bringing in economic stimulus to their first nations and northern communities.

In fact, I would like to recognize the hard work of elder Harold Disbrowe, who unfortunately passed away this week. He was a leader for the fishers in Berens River, who fought to have the recognition that seasonal workers who pay into the EI fund ought to be able to access it, despite the fewer hours that they often accumulate.

I would also like to juxtapose that to the fact that many of these people work in communities that do not have the employment that so many of us Canadians enjoy in our urban centres. In first nations and rural communities, the economic opportunities often are not there, so people and their families depend upon seasonal work such as the fishing industry.

That is why we need to ensure that when they fall on hard times, whether it is as a result of the drop in exports or whether it is the overall economic climate, they are also able to access the employment insurance fund.

I would also like to highlight the particular situation that young people face. In fact today, we heard that young people are facing some of the highest unemployment rates in 11 years. Young people find themselves working in industries and jobs where they are unable to accumulate the number of hours that, as it stands right now, would allow them to access employment insurance, something that they also pay into.

Is that the way we should be treating our future generations? Is that the way we should be treating seasonal workers who bring so much wealth and benefit to our communities? Is that the way we should be treating 51% of the population, women, who oftentimes are unable to accumulate the number of hours that would allow them to access employment insurance?

My colleague raised the issue of costing. I find it quite rich that the Conservatives, along with the Liberals in the nineties and ever since, have had no problem accessing money from the EI fund to pay off all sorts of things, including giving corporate tax cuts at the expense of workers when they are laid off. What happened to that $56 billion surplus in the EI fund, which was put there through the hard work of Canadians? Where did that money go?

When we talk about the costing of this particular measure, we need to recognize that this would be part of the EI fund. It would not come from general government coffers. It would come from the fund that accumulates based on the money that working Canadians contribute. The EI fund, after all, is meant to be there for workers when they lose their jobs, not for priorities based on whatever the government of the day sees them to be. It is something that ought to be there for workers to depend on and is guaranteed to be there for them to depend on in many ways. We need to ensure the money is there.

It has been referenced by my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing that there is a diversity of people, different stakeholders, different people across Canadian society who have expressed serious concern about the commitments that have been made by the government with respect to employment insurance, whether it is people from the labour community, our brothers and sisters in the Canadian Labour Congress, or people in the business and banking community.

A TD Bank economist pointed out that Canadian governments have a poor track record, allowing short term measures to lapse, recognizing that we need to be looking at long term changes to a fund as fundamental as the employment insurance fund to ensure the well-being of workers when they fall upon hard times.

Fundamentally, we need to be looking at restructuring a fund that is so important, not just for the survival of people who have lost their jobs and the survival of their families, but also recognizing that it brings an economic stimulus of, I believe, a 1.6% return on every $1 of EI that is given out. It also prevents people from entering into the welfare system, which, for many people, is hard to come out of.

We need to ensure we are standing up for the well-being of Canadians who have been unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. We need to be looking at measures that are not just short term but are looking at the well-being of Canadians in the long term sense.

I am encouraged to note that our seatmates on the Liberal side of the House are looking positively at these measures. However, my concern is their past track record in terms of dipping their hands into the EI surplus fund.

I stand here to call upon the Government of Canada to recognize that this bill is fundamentally about the justice that Canadians deserve as they work hard, day in and day out, to ensure there is something for the well-being of all of us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-280 proposed by the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. The bill seeks to change a number of provisions of the Employment Insurance Act regarding benefit calculations and qualifications.

Before I address the bill, I would like to speak about our government's responsible and substantial actions to help Canadians get back to work through our unprecedented investments in skills development and programs that will help Canadians prepare for the jobs of the future.

As announced in our economic action plan, our government is implementing targeted actions that will inject immediate stimulus to the economy, promote long term growth and directly help unemployed Canadians deal with this economic downturn.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said it best when she recently appeared before the human resources committee and said:

...we're well aware of the challenges that many Canadians are facing in these uncertain economic times particularly as unemployment rises. To address these challenges, our government is making record investments to stimulate the economy, to support the unemployed, to preserve jobs, and to retrain workers for the jobs of the future. With the co-operation of our provincial and territorial partners the federal government's economic action plan will inject almost $52 billion into the Canadian economy over the next two years. We know that jobs are the key to economic recovery and that's where our economic action plan is built on three pillars: creating jobs, preserving jobs, and preparing Canadians for the jobs of the future.

Creating jobs, preserving jobs and preparing Canadians for the jobs of the future, that is what our plan is all about. Among other things, we are providing an additional $1 billion over two years for the provinces and territories through existing labour market development agreements for skills training. This initiative is only one part of our $8.3 billion Canada skills and transition strategy.

This strategy will help Canadian workers through the EI system by strengthening benefits. It is will enhance and increase the availability of training to Canadians who qualify for EI and for those who do not. It will also keep EI premiums rates frozen, ensuring that workers and employers are not further hurt by an increase in EI premiums during this difficult economic time.

We are also acting to protect Canadian jobs. We have improved the work sharing program by extending the duration of work sharing agreements by 14 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks. As the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development shared with this House earlier in the week, over 93,000—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The member for Niagara West—Glanbrook will have seven minutes when the House next returns to this matter.

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 May 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Before resuming debate on this bill, I would like to issue a ruling.

On May 7, prior to the second reading debate on Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits) standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, a point of order was raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to the effect that this bill requires a royal recommendation.

The parliamentary secretary argued that Bill C-280 would result in significant new expenditures by lowering the threshold for eligibility for some claimants and changing the formula for the calculation of benefits.

He further noted that Bill C-280 was virtually identical to another private member's bill introduced in the last Parliament, Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), which had been found to require a royal recommendation.

In replying to the parliamentary secretary's point of order, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh expressed the opinion that a royal recommendation was not required since any new expenditure would be covered by contributions from workers and employers and not by the government.

I have examined the bills carefully and found that as the parliamentary secretary noted, Bill C-280 and Bill C-265 are indeed virtually identical. They both contain proposed changes to the employment insurance program that include lowering the threshold for becoming a major attachment claimant to 360 hours, setting benefits payable to 55% of the average weekly insurable earnings during the highest paid 12 weeks in the 12 month period preceding the interruption of earnings, and reducing the qualifying period before receiving benefits and removing the distinctions made in the qualifying period on the basis of the regional unemployment rate.

On March 23, 2007, in a ruling on Bill C-265, on page 7845 of the Debates, the Chair had concluded that:

It is abundantly clear to the Chair that such changes to the employment insurance program, notwithstanding the fact that workers and employers contribute to it, would have the effect of authorizing increased expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized.

Therefore, it appears to the Chair that those provisions of the bill which relate to increasing Employment Insurance benefits and easing the qualifications required to obtain them would require a royal recommendation.

Having heard no new compelling argument to reach a conclusion that is different than the one concerning Bill C-265, I will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-280 in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

However, today 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.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook has seven minutes remaining in his time slot.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the first hour of debate on the bill, I spoke briefly about some of the substantive measures this government is taking to help Canadians get back to work and to train for the jobs of the future. I also mentioned some of the actions we have taken to protect Canadian jobs.

One of the highlights of our job protection efforts is our improvement of the work sharing program. We have extended the duration of work sharing agreements by 14 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks. As the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development shared with the House late last month, over 110,000 Canadians are benefiting right now from our expansion of the work sharing program. Those are jobs that are being protected.

The bill of course deals with the employment insurance program. As discussed numerous times before in this place, this is an area where our government has taken significant action to help Canadians through our economic action plan.

To help Canadians through the challenges posed by the current economic situation, we have extended EI benefits by five additional weeks through a national expansion of an existing pilot program that was focused in areas of high unemployment. These five weeks will help unemployed Canadians who need it most.

We have also increased the maximum duration of benefits available under the EI program from 45 weeks to 50 weeks. Further to this, we are introducing a new initiative for long tenured workers who are taking training, allowing those workers to receive EI benefits up to a maximum of 104 weeks while they pursue their training.

As the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said during the first hour of debate on Bill C-280, the proposed NDP legislation before us has not been costed and it does not take into account the future potential unintended consequences on the labour market that these proposed changes may have.

Any proposals for reform to the EI program need to be considered comprehensively within the context of who is going to pay for these changes while also taking into account what impact these proposals would have on helping Canadians get back to work so they can get jobs to put food on the table and provide for their families.

I want to reiterate that our government recognizes the challenges faced by those who have lost their jobs in these difficult times. That is why we want to ensure that any action we take is effective in both the short and the longer term.

That is also why we are monitoring the effectiveness of our measures, to make sure that the EI system is working and responding effectively to the evolving economic circumstances.

What we will not do is implement this Liberal-NDP 360 hour, 45 day work year idea.

The opposition can say what it wants about this scheme, and we know that it will. The fact is that this irresponsible proposal would result in a massive increase in job killing payroll taxes that would hurt workers and businesses alike, at a time when they can least afford it. This irresponsible proposal certainly would not help Canadians find new jobs or get new skills. It would simply add billions and billions more to the tax burden on Canadians.

Members do not have to take it from me. Let us see what others are saying about this Liberal-NDP plan.

The sponsor of the bill herself, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, said on Monday, in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, that “a payroll tax increase may be necessary”.

The Liberals realized this when they stated in a press release back in October that the NDP proposal would result in an “employment insurance premium hike”. They seem to have forgotten that now. It is striking that the Liberal Party would be honest with Canadians when it is looking for their votes during an election but would change its tune now.

It should also be noted that on April 11, 2008, the Liberal EI critic, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, a colleague of mine on the HR committee, said in committee:

It's my view that if you get rid of the regional rates and there are changes forced on the EI system because of the economic circumstances, those in the [high unemployment] regions will be hurt disproportionately.

He also said that the “cost is pretty significant” to do this 360 hour, 45 day work year plan. He said we should “keep the regional rates to protect those people in high unemployment areas”.

He said that just a year ago.

Let us see what others are saying about the Liberal-NDP 45 day work year proposal.

Harvey Enchin said in the Vancouver Sun on May 26:

The Liberal option not only seems illogical but it would raise the federal deficit--and probably taxes--while doing nothing to address the fact that many of the jobs that have been lost are not coming back. The Conservative government is right to reject it.

The federal government is on the right track with investment in skills training The federal government is on the right track with investment in skills training and transition programs.

Here is what Don Martin, of the Calgary Herald, said on the same day:

But just 360 hours to qualify? For a benefit payment period that’s just shy of a year? That’s a bit rich, even for Liberals.

Yet there are many better ways to reform the system, starting with the Conservative’s reannounced $500-million to stretch benefits for long-term workers....

I agree with that and I think a good many Canadians do as well. Unlike the opposition's rhetoric and irresponsible plans, our government's economic action plan is helping Canadians get new skills for new jobs and is helping Canadians through these tough economic times. Unlike the opposition, on this side of the House we will not force all working Canadians and businesses to pay more taxes for this proposal.

Our government is helping and will continue to help Canadians get the training they need for the jobs of tomorrow. We will continue to help preserve jobs so that hard-working Canadians can continue to pay their mortgages and provide for the needs of their families. Our economic action plan is providing additional support to Canadians in a responsible, coordinated way, and we will continue to do so.

The proposal before us is not responsible and that is why we on this side of the House cannot support it .

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-280. The issue of employment insurance is critical and impacts every community in our country. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the need for changes to this critical component of our social infrastructure.

Since the economic crisis began, more than 300,000 Canadians have lost their jobs. Our system of employment insurance, designed more than 60 years ago, was simply not structured to effectively manage a national crisis of this scope.

More than 40% of unemployed Canadians who have paid into employment insurance do not qualify for benefits because of where they live. This is a serious concern and one the bill takes steps to address.

Employment insurance rules have not kept pace with the changing work environment. Current restrictions on claiming employment insurance benefits are preventing workers who have paid into the program from claiming money to support their families now when they need it most.

Across the country, 58 regional standards govern which Canadians are eligible for temporary assistance when laid off from their jobs and which Canadians are left to fend for themselves. This means that while most of us pay into the employment insurance program for most of our lives, we may never be eligible to receive employment insurance if we happen to lose our jobs through no fault of our own.

This assortment of regional standards is clearly not meeting the needs of the unemployed. We are seeing cases, for example, where two workers are laid off in the same factory and have paid the same amount into employment insurance but are now receiving different levels of assistance because their town just happens to straddle the border of two employment insurance regions.

In my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, I recently heard from a young professional woman who in my riding found herself applying for employment insurance for the very first time because she was laid off from her job as an occupational therapist. Her hours had already been scaled back and she was working mostly part time in the months leading up to the permanent layoff. As a first time filer in my region, she needed 840 hours to qualify for benefits. The reduction in the hours over the previous months left her with only 581 insurable hours, not nearly enough to qualify.

I also think of fish plant workers, for example, from Petty Harbour who work side by side doing the same work for the same number of hours with someone from the community right next door. The person from Petty Harbour needs 630 hours to qualify and his fellow worker living nearby in the next community needs 420 hours.

In this economic situation, the employment insurance system is not right for the times and needs to be adjusted.

I believe that a temporary national 360-hour standard of employment insurance eligibility should be introduced for as long as this economic crisis in Canada persists. This would set a temporary consistent standard across the country and make it easier for workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own to qualify for benefits during this crucial time.

This proposal would not only mean 150,000 additional unemployed Canadians would have access to benefits, but it would also inject much needed spending in some of the hardest hit communities. Families spending money on food, rent and transportation translates into one of the most immediate, effective and direct ways to get desperately needed stimulus money flowing into our communities.

During this time of record job losses, we need to help unemployed Canadians. Implementing a national 360-hour standard to qualify for employment insurance would provide benefits for thousands of Canadians who have paid into the system and who now need help to support their families.

As we pull through this difficult economic time, it will be crucial to ensure that areas facing chronically high levels of unemployment are helped by the development of consistent standards for employment insurance and are not made to meet unreachable targets that would be impossible in other areas.

Most stakeholders strongly support the creation of a 360-hour standard for employment insurance. Social policy organizations across the country, including the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canadian Labour Congress and many unions, have all advocated for a national standard.

Provincial political leaders are also calling for changes to the employment insurance system. Several premiers, including Premier McGuinty, Premier Stelmach and Premier Campbell, have all called for a national standard for employment insurance. Unfortunately, the government would rather leave Canadian families to fend for themselves than fix this crucial program.

Rather than opting to inject stimulus funding into local economies through increased employment insurance eligibility, which vulnerable families spend on groceries, transportation and housing, the government has characterized employment insurance as being too lucrative. This characterization by the minister is insulting to the thousands of Canadians struggling to make ends meet while they search for new meaningful jobs, and it is simply not true.

Families are burdened with enough concerns during these troubled economic times without adding additional confusion and apprehension about whether or not they will be able to qualify for employment insurance should they lose their jobs. I am hearing calls for clarity from workers in my riding in advance of this summer's closure of a telecommunications company in Mount Pearl, Teletech.

My constituents are concerned about whether they will qualify for benefits and would like to know if they will actually have access to some of the training programs. Clarity on qualification standards would go a long way to answering some of the many questions workers face when they know an eventual layoff, plant closure or restructuring at their place of employment is on the horizon.

Last week, in an attempt to convince Canadians her government would be taking badly needed action on this issue, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development simply repeated a part of the budget in place of announcing some kind of plan. The minister's reannouncement of funding for employment insurance training programs does nothing to help the thousands of Canadians who have not been lucky enough to qualify for employment insurance benefits in the first place. Not one new worker will qualify for employment insurance or benefit from this training program. These programs apply only to those who qualify for employment insurance already, leaving thousands of Canadians out in the cold.

Funding for training, while a crucial component of a strategy to address retraining and chronic unemployment, is not the full answer to this problem. If Canadians cannot qualify for this assistance in the first place, these training benefits are of no use.

In response to a question I recently asked in the House, the minister responsible for employment insurance indicated that it was becoming easier for people to access employment insurance, backing up this claim by pointing to regions of the country where so many workers have lost their jobs that the eligibility standards have changed. In her response, the minister stated, “The worse the situation gets, the easier it is for people to collect benefits”. Is that not unbelievable?

It would seem that the government's solution to the employment insurance crisis is to wait for more businesses to close, more companies to fail and more Canadians to lose their jobs so that the threshold for that region would change. This is a staggeringly inadequate strategy.

There is a clear need to undertake an intensive review of employment insurance and to carefully consider the changes that will make employment insurance more accessible during this economic crisis. Employment insurance rules have not kept pace with the changing work environment and it is time to address these shortfalls. Restrictions are preventing workers who have paid into the program from claiming benefits now to support their families when they need it most.

The government has a responsibility to help, especially during this economic crisis. It is time for the government to actually do something to help the unemployed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this bill, a very important bill, even though we see some flaws in it. I will follow up on the comments of my hon. colleague and address the accessibility of EI.

Seeing that my hon. colleagues from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and Saint-Lambert, with whom I work on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities are both here, I will take this opportunity to remind the House that the committee is currently carrying out a study on poverty in the country. One point that everyone appearing as witnesses on behalf of their various groups is making is that the restrictions to the EI program put a terrible burden on individuals, make them poorer and make things worse for them. They are unable to have access to benefits despite the fact that, in many cases, they have contributed to the program for weeks and months.

We know that many steps were taken over the years to exclude as many people as possible from the program and that, as a result, a minority of those contributing to EI actually receive benefits. Previous speakers, except for those from the Conservative Party of course, recognized that this is a major problem that has to be addressed.

We are delighted that the Liberal Party now agrees with us and recognizes the need to implement measures as soon as possible. Such measures will help those who are losing their jobs, of course, but they will also contribute to the economic recovery.

Bill C-280, which was put forward by my hon. colleague from the NDP, calls for a minimum of 360 hours of work to qualify for benefits. Adding five weeks of benefits is another measure. Some might say that those five weeks have already been granted in the last budget, but I should point out that this is a temporary measure designed to get out of the current crisis.

Missing are a number of measures we would have liked to see come about. We would have liked benefits to rise from rise from 55% of insurable earnings to 60%. The same for the two week waiting period. I will come back to that later, when the bill put forward by the Bloc Québécois, a more comprehensive bill in my opinion, comes up for consideration.

We will also have some questions for our NDP friends about how the rules will be relaxed during the economic crisis, including new criteria for people who received employment insurance overpayments previously or who have received a penalty. The rules are not quite clear. I think that when we study this bill in committee, we will have an opportunity to go into detail in this area, which is still a bit vague.

All the same, we have to be realistic about the work that needs to be done. Earlier, I mentioned that our Liberal friends had expressed their intent to vote for this bill. However, we need to know their precise intentions. The only measure the Liberal Party has proposed so far—a proposal it has made over and over—is the 360-hour rule. The Liberals think that it is a way to help us get out of the crisis. But this bill includes a permanent rule that will last as long as the House believes it to be appropriate given the state of the economy.

That is the only measure the Liberals have discussed and debated up to now. For Bill C-280 specifically, we have to urge the Speaker of the House and the Prime Minister to have a vote on this bill at third reading. Will they vote at third reading? Voting at second reading is a much smaller commitment when the Speaker announces that he does not intend to authorize third reading unless the bill receives a royal recommendation.

There is another important issue with respect to the credibility of the proposal. We have to remember that the system is what it is right now because of the previous government. The current government is making a mistake by keeping these bad measures in place. But it was the previous government that passed Bill C-17 in 1994, Bill C-12 in 1996, Bills C-32 and C-2 in 2000, Bill C-49 in 2002 and Bill C-23 in 2005.

That does not mean much, because they are just numbers. But each of those bills, which were passed and became laws, represent measures to limit access to EI as much as possible. According to the Department of Human Resources and Social Development, about 44.6% of all people who claim EI can expect to receive benefits. That is quite serious, because it affects not only those losing their jobs, but also their families, the local economy, the regional economy and the economy of the provinces concerned.

We know that someone who does not receive EI benefits will eventually find themselves on welfare, which is administered exclusively by the provinces, even though this person made contributions to the EI system and the EI fund. But the Canadian government does not contribute one cent to this fund. I would call that a serious economic crime, because access to EI is being compromised. We know now that there was a surplus of about $57 billion that the government spent on other things over the past 12 years. That means that there are hundreds of thousands of families who have suffered because of these measures, some of whom have been plunged into poverty.

The Bloc Québécois has consistently brought forward bills that, every time, have been fought by the two big federal majority parties.

In conclusion, if the Liberal Party wants to be credible—because the Conservatives are hopeless, and this is clear from their right-wing measures that take away all the means to support the economy and especially the poor—it must first vote in favour of Bill C-280. It must in particular, as of June 19, join us in studying and debating in favour of Bill C-308, which I introduced on behalf of my party. This bill of course brings back the 360 hours and the 60% of income earned, eliminates the distinctions, eliminates the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length, and bases the calculation of benefits on the 12 best weeks.

This is my invitation to my colleagues here in the House. The time has come to fix the employment insurance system.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-280, which was introduced by the NDP member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. I want to thank her for putting this bill forward. There is some controversy around it, as we have heard from the Speaker, about the cost factor.

In the midst of this recession, where so many workers who have, through no fault of their own, found themselves unemployed and today quite desperate, Bill C-280 would begin the process of setting right those aspects of Canada's employment insurance system that have been shut down for so many Canadians since the 1990s, as we heard from the previous speaker.

On first examination, Bill C-280 appears to be relatively simple legislation, but I will remind members present that it has two significant objectives. The bill would create a uniform level entry for every person who made a claim for EI benefits by lowering the threshold hours for qualification to 360 hours for people in every region of Canada.

We hear from various media outlets that the Liberal leader is proposing the same 360 hours for qualification for EI benefits, but I would point out that the Liberal leader is in fact proposing only a temporary fix to the qualifying hours for just one year.

I want to be clear. This NDP member's bill, Bill C-280, proposes a permanent change to 360 hours for qualifying for benefits. In addition, Bill C-280 would ensure benefits to people based on their best 12 weeks of earnings in the year prior to their claim. You will know, Madam Speaker, that this would be a marked improvement over the current 14 weeks that are considered to set benefit levels today.

It appears from the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that current Liberals are actually interested in reforming employment insurance. We in the NDP have called for this for years. In fact, I would say the Liberals have a particular understanding of the current EI rules because much of what we need to repair today comes from the damage that they themselves inflicted on the system in the 1990s.

We will also recall it was during that period that the Liberal finance minister, later prime minister, the former member for LaSalle—Émard, not only changed the eligibility rules for employment insurance but the very name of unemployment insurance was changed to employment insurance. Those changes included a change of philosophical view regarding the contributions of workers and employers, that they now be viewed not as premiums for insurance but as being payroll taxes. The contribution/premiums acquired then could be directed to general revenues and debt reduction.

Turning EI into a tax on working people, fed Liberal surplus budgets and helped the Liberals justify implementing corporate tax breaks. Of course this was a passion shared by their friends of the day, the Progressive Conservatives. However, in fairness, I am pleased that the Liberals have done a 180° turn and now, apparently, at least as a temporary measure, share the our goal to see the threshold for benefits lowered to 360 hours.

Bill C-280 would put an end to the regional disparity in the qualifying period. This NDP bill would ensure the flow of EI dollars to more Canadians, who so desperately need them right now.

The existing EI rules set nine different sets of criteria in terms of hours worked for nine different ranges of regional unemployment rates. Workers in Canada may be required to have anywhere from 420 to 700 hours of eligible work to become a claimant for this benefit. This inequity is not suited for the kinds of job losses we see in Canada today. Regional unemployment rates are in flux and shift from day to day and week to week. EI must be better able to respond to this challenge. Common sense should dictate this, but I find common sense just is not common in the halls of the current government, or the preceding one, for that matter.

We are hearing support for changes to EI from some non-traditional places, such as the TD Bank and the Caledon Institute, both of which are saying that lowering the number of hours needed to qualify for employment insurance is the right thing to do to further combat the global recession.

These two particular groups clearly understand that EI not only serves the individual, but serves the communities' well-being and that of our nation as a whole. They understand very well that if we hang our workers and communities out to dry, it is not only bad for business but bad for the future of our country as a whole.

Across this country, Canadians will tell us very quickly there is much more to an economy than balance sheets and mathematical equations. For instance, Canadians know that the economy is only as secure as the lives of the people who make up our country.

The TD Bank and the Caledon Institute have taken a view of our economy that is both one for the long term, as well as for the short term. They recognize that one important economic measure that will help support a hurting economy in an almost immediate way is an employment insurance system that catches more people in a safety net, not fewer.

There will be those, and even some in this place, who will contend that we cannot afford to make employment insurance more accessible.

After years of building up a $54 billion EI surplus, the Conservative government wrote it off the books last year. The government owes Canadians the EI protection that they have paid into for years. Canadians have played by the rules, and now the federal government must set EI rules that protect them.

I can hear it now, like an echo in this place, how the government has already expanded the number of weeks a person can remain as a claimant. Yes, this is certainly true. However, those five weeks mean nothing to a person, to a family, when the person does not even qualify for benefits in the first place. And those extra weeks are only a temporary stopgap added to the end of a benefit period, where statistically people are even less likely to claim them.

The NDP has told the Conservative government repeatedly how it is critically important to remove the two-week waiting period for new claimants at the front end if we want to help a majority of claimants right now.

What is clear is that we have the opportunity to not only do the right thing at a time of national need, but we clearly cannot afford to miss this opportunity to fix a discriminatory and close to dysfunctional system.

The current Conservative government often looks to the U.S. to see its experience in any given matter. I offer the chief economist for Moody's credit rating service as an example. He testified before the U.S. House Committee on Small Business last July that apart from U.S. food stamps, the best bang for the government buck was to ensure that unemployed workers had access to employment insurance benefits.

To determine the effectiveness of differing stimulus measures, he compared their multipliers, an equation that gives a dollar amount to the economic activity created by a government dollar spent to stimulate the economy. His conclusions, for some, will be shocking.

A typical right-wing solution, such as a permanent tax cut, came in as a loss, a negative equation, that saw the dollar spent fizzle to half of its value. His opinion was that they were drains on the economy.

Infrastructure spending was quite good, with a multiplier of $1.59 for every dollar spent. In his view, again, the problem with infrastructure spending is in the amount of time it takes to have the money flow to the economy, which is exactly what we are living in Canada today.

His suggestion was that the better way to get money into the community immediately was through increases in spending on unemployment insurance. With a multiplier of $1.64, that would get the job done.

I will close by saying that our first best chance to help Canadians directly and in a tangible way is through Bill C-280. I ask members to join the NDP and support this bill.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-280.

In the current economic situation, our government is taking unprecedented action to help Canadians adjust to the changing economy and acquire the skills required for the jobs of tomorrow, as seen by our government's economic action plan.

One of the things we are doing to help and protect Canadians during the economic downturn is investing $8.3 billion to the Canadian skills and transition strategy. We are providing unprecedented support for workers to train and acquire new skills. Our plan will invest an additional $1 billion in funding over the next two years for training delivered under the EI program through existing labour market development agreements. This funding will help the provinces and the territories train an additional 100,000 EI eligible claimants.

To help Canadian workers who are not EI eligible, we are also providing $500 million to establish the strategic training and transition fund to support their training needs. To help workers while they are looking for work and who have been unemployed for longer periods, our plan provides nationally an extra five weeks of EI benefits. That was offered as part of a pilot project that had previously only been provided in regions with high unemployment. We have also increased the maximum duration of benefits available under the EI program by five weeks, raising it from 45 to 50 weeks.

This government is pursuing a broad-based labour market approach aimed at helping Canadians through this economic downturn. We are doing this by helping them upgrade their skills to get new jobs, while injecting significant economic stimulus into the economy.

With respect to the bill that we have before us today, there are, however, many problems. First, this legislation fails to consider how changes being proposed would impact the EI program as a whole. It fails to consider what the impact would be upon labour markets, and it fails to consider how much it would cost, a particularly important consideration during tough economic times.

Any responsible proposal that seeks to make permanent changes to the EI program needs to consider how the proposed changes would be paid for, who would pay for them and how these changes would help Canadians get back to work so they can provide for their families.

As mentioned earlier in remarks, our government is doing many things to help those in need, but what it will not do is implement the Liberal-NDP 360 hour, 45 work days a year idea. This is what this bill seeks to implement.

We are not the only ones who believe this bill is an ill-conceived idea. On April 3 of this year the Scarborough Mirror reported that the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood said he was “hesitant” on the 360 hour threshold, saying that nine weeks of work seemed “low” Commenting on the impact that this legislation would have on the labour market, here is what Jack Mintz said in the National Post:

--shortening drastically the qualification period would encourage greater turnover of workers, result in a permanent rise in the unemployment rate and impose a high economic cost.

Mr. Mintz also addressed the opposition's position on EI, saying:

But, one should be careful not to come to quick conclusions about access to EI.

He then referred to a study by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development that said:

...shows that eligibility is not a problem for many hardworking Canadians who have recently lost a long-term job.

The fact of the matter is hard-working people who have just lost a long-term job and who have paid EI for years are some of the people who are hurting most right now. This proposed legislation does absolutely nothing to help them.

Commenting on the Liberal-NDP 45 day work year proposal, this is what a Vancouver Sun columnist said:

The Liberal option not only seems illogical but it would raise the federal deficit--and probably taxes--while doing nothing to address the fact that many of the jobs that have been lost are not coming back. The Conservative government is right to reject it....

The federal government is on the right track with investment in skills training and transition programs...

The fact of the matter is that this proposal would result in a massive job-killing payroll tax that would hurt workers and businesses at a time when they can least afford it. It would do nothing to help workers get new skills and new jobs.

The hon. members of this place should understand that the people who will be most directly impacted by this payroll tax hike will be the working poor, people earning between $15,000 and $40,000 a year, people who work for minimum wage. Many members of this House have not worked for minimum wage month after month. I have. It is those people most of all, along with small businesses, who need to be protected from this cash-grab payroll tax hike the opposition is proposing.

It should also be noted that this bill will make the proposed changes permanent. There are no temporary measures here. Let us not be fooled in this regard. On one hand, they say that temporary changes are favoured, and on the other hand they say they support this bill that would make a 45-day work year permanent. The Liberals cannot keep their stories straight. Let us take a trip through some of their flip-flops.

The NDP sponsor of this bill, herself, said in the StarPhoenix on June 1, “A payroll tax increase may be necessary”. The Liberals, however, realized this back in October, and they said so. They said the NDP plan would result in an employment insurance premium hike. I guess this is one of the ways the Liberals will have to raise taxes. Now the Liberals will deny that they will need to raise EI taxes on lower income workers. Well, which is it?

I know the Liberal member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and the official opposition EI critic had much to say on this issue. He continues to ask why we are sticking with the regional rates and are not implementing this Liberal-NDP job-killing 45-day work year idea.

Well, I can tell members by using the words of the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour from April 1, 2008 in committee,

It's my view that if you get rid of the regional rates and there are changes forced on our EI system because of the economic circumstances, those in the regions will be hurt disproportionately.

He also said that the “cost is pretty significant” to do this 360-hour, 45-day work year idea. He said that we should, “keep the regional rates. This is to protect those people in high unemployment areas”. He said that barely a year ago.

On May 13, 2005, the former Liberal government also said in its response to the human resources committee:

--significantly reducing entrance requirements...is not likely to equate to substantially increased EI coverage, particularly for the long-term unemployed.

Now they do not seem to agree with themselves.

I am loath to quote Liberal members opposite who now seem bent on implementing irresponsible and ill-conceived policies, but I must say that on past occasions they did occasionally talk some common sense. But where has that sense gone?

If we are trying to help others, I think the Liberals, especially the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, should try to help themselves. They should listen to what they themselves had to say in the past. They might learn a few things.

While the opposition continues to propose irresponsible and ill-conceived ideas that will only increase taxes by billions of dollars, Canadians can rest assured that our government has taken unprecedented and effective action to support workers to get through these difficult economic times.

This government will not raise payroll taxes on working Canadians, on low income Canadians. We will not target small business and the workers of this country.

The proposals in Bill C-280 would result in a massive increase in a job-killing payroll tax that would hurt workers and businesses at a time when they can least afford it. These proposals would also do nothing to help hard-working Canadians who have paid into EI for years and years, and have just lost their job.

It is for these reasons and the reasons I mentioned earlier that I cannot, and I will not, support Bill C-280.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and respond at the completion of the second reading stage of my private member's bill.

I am grateful for all the MPs who spoke to the bill and look forward to continuing this discussion in committee should the House vote to move in that direction which I expect it will.

New Democrats have been focusing on problems within the employment insurance system for many years now. We criticized the change that took EI from being a self-sufficient fund capable of responding to immediate problems without jeopardizing year to year fiscal budgets to becoming part of Canada's general revenues and expenditures.

We all know that over $55 billion was stolen by the Liberals and used to pay down the deficit. Now, it would seem that the Liberals have finally come to their senses and may very well realize that NDP members were right all along.

The Conservatives have continued to use EI premiums paid by employers and employees as a cashflow for general revenue instead of ensuring that it be a stand-alone fund which would specifically be used by those who find themselves out of work.

We expressed grave concerns about how it was becoming more difficult to claim employment insurance and the inequities that were coming to define the program.

New Democrats criticized how EI became a tax on workers, a tax that led to a decade of surpluses, a tax that fueled corporate tax cuts by both the Conservatives and the Liberals, and a tax that placed an unfair burden on hard-working Canadians and employers who have the right at this point to demand more for all they have paid for over the years.

Had EI remained relatively accessible for Canadians who lost their jobs throughout these changes, it may have been more difficult to criticize some of these changes, but it has not. Employment insurance is only accessible to about 40% of those who pay into it. Where is the justice in that? There is none.

With 347,400 jobs lost since the last election and another 320,700 laid off in that same period of time, there is no question that this is a timely bill.

Just as the motion by my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, which was passed by the House in March was timely, we have witnessed this week that the government is capable of moving dramatically to support communities in dire need as it bailed out GM, highlighting the number of spin-off jobs and the damage that would be done to communities as one of the biggest reasons to do so.

That is the same argument we can make for improving EI and I wish the government would have done the same with regard to our forestry industry.

Employment insurance is widely seen as a viable form of economic stimulus that protects communities from events such as we are seeing today. It allows the local stores to stay in business by ensuring that they still have a customer base.

The bottom line is that for every $1 that is paid out to a person who is unemployed, it is an economic stimulus of $1.64 into the economy. It prevents diaspora scenarios in many smaller centres like some of those from my constituency: Nairn Centre, Hornepayne, Wawa, White River, Manitouwadge, Kapuskasing and Hearst, while they wait for mills and plants to reopen or logging trucks to roll again.

It is not just employment insurance. It is a community insurance.

The bill would help these communities by removing regional distinctions and level the playing field of eligibility for EI benefits to 360 hours. New Democrats recognize that it is just as important to protect neighbourhood communities in large centres as it is to protect smaller towns and communities.

The bill would also reduce the sampling period for a claim from the best 14 weeks to the best 12 weeks of the previous year.

As I said previously, I would like to thank all the members who have joined in the debate on this bill. I believe that by engaging in these debates we will keep the issue of the inequity that has been built into the employment insurance program front and foremost in our national dialogue.

New Democrats are committed to the fight for an equitable employment insurance program that serves our country well. The bill would go a long way in that direction and I look forward to shepherding it through the committee process.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the recorded division is deferred until Wednesday, June 10, just before the time provided for private members' business.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-413, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (extension of benefit period for adoptive parents).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my bill has been seconded by the brilliant member for Hamilton Mountain.

Many people are talking about the fact that so many Canadians do not have access to employment insurance even when they pay into the program. One group that does not have access to the full benefits that we would seek for equality for parents is adoptive parents.

Parents who go through the adoption process make a financial commitment and a wide range of other commitments, including time, to raise the children they have adopted, and yet the Employment Insurance Act still discriminates against them. It does not treat them the same as biological parents.

This bill would amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code to extend the benefit period for adoptive parents so it is the same as already exists under the Employment Insurance Act for biological parents.

It is important to do this. Adoptive parents are making a huge commitment in time and effort to raise their adopted children. We have to make sure we provide the right support in the employment insurance program so that they can get off to the right start with their adopted children.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-280 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #84

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

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

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

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (amounts not included in earnings), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-279, under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #88

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion lost.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 6:29 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.