Bill C-50 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act until September 11, 2010 to increase the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants. It also increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants not in Canada.

Employment Insurance Act

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-50, and I encourage all hon. members to support the bill. The bill is about helping Canadian workers and their families. We are extending the duration of EI benefits to these workers who have worked a long time and have never or rarely collected EI benefits. Many of these workers have lost their jobs through no fault of their own because of the global economic downturn. These Canadians have paid their dues. They have worked hard, paid their taxes for many years and have paid their EI premiums. It is fair and responsible that we support them and their families in their time of need.

Many of these workers have worked at the same job or the same industry all their lives and face the prospect of having to start all over again. In most cases, they simply need some more time. The economy is on the cusp of recovery and our Conservative government is working to help Canada begin a strong recovery. New job creation will probably lag behind the main economic indicators, so our government is taking this action to ensure that these long time workers have the bridge they need so they can get back into the workforce.

These measures will help to ensure that long-tenured workers who have paid into the EI system for years are provided the help they need while they search for new employment. These are temporary changes to the EI program to help workers when they need it most. The bill would extend national regular EI benefits for long-tenured workers by between five and twenty weeks, depending on the number of years workers have worked and paid EI premiums.

As proposed, the new temporary measure would cover all new claims established from early 2009 through to those established until early September 2010. Payments would then gradually phase out by fall of 2011. This temporary measure is designed to help long-tenured workers find work as our economy recovers. The additional weeks of EI regular benefits would help those workers by providing support for a longer period while they look for work during the economic downturn.

The bill is part and parcel of our government's economic action plan and works together with another initiative in that action plan, namely, career transition assistance. This measure extends EI benefits for up to two years for workers who are in longer term training. This initiative is also available to long-tenured workers and the eligibility criteria for this initiative and for Bill C-50 are the same. Through the bill, in concert with our economic action plan, we are taking action to help hard-working Canadians.

Our government is concerned about fighting this recession. This is in contrast to the official opposition, which is more intent on fighting the recovery. The government believes it is important to fight for working Canadians than fighting an unnecessary election.

Very notable organizations that support this bill and encourage party support to help workers through these tough economic times include Bill Ferguson, president of United Steel Workers Local 8782, “It's going to be quite good and give workers a little more time...This is a good thing to extend benefits to people like that”.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty called this measure “a step in the right direction”.

Ken Lewenza, president Canadian Auto Workers said, “In the months ahead tens of thousands of unemployed workers are going to join the growing ranks of Canadians who have exhausted their EI benefits. They need action, not political posturing”.

Ken Georgetti, president, Canadian Labour Congress said, “The government's proposed changes...we're pleased about that”.

Don Drummond, TD Bank Chief Economist said, “I think time is going to prove that the debate we're having on the employment insurance system is focusing on the wrong thing. I think this recession will prove it has been less about an access problem than a duration problem”.

These and many more people from the great leaders of industry across the country have stepped forward to give their support for this. It certainly encourages all members in the House to join together to the benefit of these unemployed workers and to give them temporary benefits they so dearly need. They have worked for so many years to pay for EI benefits.

I encourage all my colleagues in the House to support the bill because it is the right thing to do and it is the fair thing to do.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to what my hon. colleague had to say. I was particularly interested that he referred to some of the Canadian labour leaders who had spoken about the bill.

Many of the people whom I have spoken with in labour have been very clear. They say that what has been proposed goes a certain amount of the way, but it does not obviously address the overarching problems of EI. They understand it and we understand it. I would like to think the government understands it. I guess what does not seem to be understood is the position of the Liberal Party at this point.

We are in an economic crisis and we now have $1 billion on the table that will help some workers but not every worker. However, the role of the opposition is to continue to push the government to improve, to change, to address the shortcomings of the system that we have in this time of crisis.

When I hear the support we are getting from across the country from labour, they are saying that there is a bigger project for labour out there that has to be addressed, but the solution is not taking $1 billion off the table so the Liberal Party can call an election.

What does my hon. colleague of the role of the House of Commons? We do not have to agree with each other. We do not have to like each other. However, Canadians sent us here. Canadians dealt the cards that put all of us in the House and told us to get something done.

Now we see something that can be done. It goes part of the way. It does not go all the way. We hear the Bloc members saying that they do not want to have anything to do with it because it does not give them everything they want in a perfect universe.

However, the Liberal members are saying something more insidious. They are saying that they do not want this on the table because they want the Liberal Party leader to get his chance at running for the leadership of the country. I think it is absolutely bizarre and delusional. I am sort of worried for his mental health if he thinks the cards are in his favour right now.

Would the member tell us why he thinks the Liberal Party members are putting their own personal interest above the interests of hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers who are calling on us to get some action on unemployment?

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments. I too am rather perplexed. We on this side of the House are trying to work with an economic action plan and trying to work through this recessionary time, which is a global issue. There are only so many things we can do, but we must work with the parties in the House.

I appreciate the interest of my college from the NDP in at least working to see what we can develop together, with our limited resources, that will help some reported 190,000 people. That is a considerable effort to work together on.

On the other hand, I find that it is not just perplexing, it is rather shameful that we have another party in the House, the official opposition, that is not interested in trying to discuss, trying to debate on some improvements for the 190,000 hard-working people.

I find it absolutely shameful that the Liberals are seemingly more interested in pulling the plug, going into an election early, an election the country does not want, a $300 million election that we cannot frankly afford, than working together with all parties in the House to help those 190,000 people. That is worthy of working together.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits.

As we have heard a number of times, this is a very specific bill that would address a particular group of workers in this country who have been in difficulty because of the economic downturn.

Specifically, the bill would address the needs of claimants whose benefits would begin after January 4, 2009 and who have claimed less than 35 weeks over the past five years. They would get from 5 to 20 extra weeks of benefits depending on how long they have been paying into the EI system.

The maximum additional weeks for those who have been paying at least 30% of their maximum annual premium in seven of the last 10 years is five weeks. To get more than that, an individual needs to have been paying that 30% for a longer period of time. To get the full 20 weeks, an individual needs to have paid in for 12 to 15 years. This is a very specific proposal that has come from the government in this regard.

We have heard different estimates of how many workers this would actually help during this recessionary period. The government has estimated that 190,000 workers would be able to take advantage of it. Others have suggested that the number is lower. It is a significant group of people nonetheless.

Thousands and thousands of Canadian workers would be able to extend their EI benefits because of their long attachment to the workforce. That is important to remember as we talk about this particular piece of legislation.

Almost $1 billion is on the table to help these workers. That is a significant change from the attitude of the government in recent months. The government was not prepared to extend more money to help workers who had lost their jobs and were suffering through the recession. To put $1 billion on the table to help workers is a significant concession by the Conservative government. We need to take that seriously because people need our assistance. To not accept the possibility of that assistance at this time is not a responsible position for a member of Parliament to take.

The particular group of workers that this legislation would help are older workers, workers who have been in their positions for a long period of time and have been paying into EI over a long period of time.

From years of experience we know that older workers who lose their jobs often have great difficulty getting back into the workforce. People in their mid to late fifties and sixties who lose their jobs face incredible challenges in finding work based on their age, based on their lack of training and lack of up to date training. That group of workers is often difficult to help retrain, to help get back into the workforce. That is why this legislation is particularly important. It would probably help older workers the most. We also need to pay particular attention to that when we are considering this legislation.

Older workers have been of particular concern to New Democrats and to people in the labour movement. Finding some help for them in this period of crisis would be a significant step forward.

Does this legislation address the 1.6 million Canadians who are out of a job? No, it does not address that incredibly high number. Does it address the 800,000 people who have lost their jobs and do not have access to EI at all? No, it does not do that. This is a very specific measure.

How do we say no to those older workers, to those workers who have lost their jobs after a long period of attachment to the workforce? How do we tell them that they do not deserve the particular help that is being offered to them now? I am not in a position to say that they should not have this assistance.

I suspect that many of the workers who are not covered by this legislation, who still are not getting the kind of EI benefits that they deserve, are not going to say that older workers should not get the help that is proposed for them either. Workers will understand it is important that people who need help get it and that we will keep working to ensure that is broadened and other workers are brought in to programs that will give them assistance in this time of economic downturn.

I do not think this legislation pretends to be a comprehensive reform of the EI system, far from it, but we could use that.

New Democrats have proposed for a long time that we need to get back to the basics of what the unemployment insurance program was all about and recover some of the ground that we have lost over a number of decades, lost primarily, I have to say, under Liberal governments that gutted the unemployment insurance program.

The Liberals started that back in the 1970s. In fact, they lost their minister responsible for unemployment insurance when they first decided to gut the program back in the 1970s. The minister resigned over those changes that were imposed on Canadians back then. We saw them gut it again through the 1990s so that it is now a shadow of what it once was.

We saw the Liberals squander the money that they collected from employers and workers in Canada through their contributions for EI. That 54 billion, 55 billion, 56 billion, 57 billion dollars of money that was taken in over and above what was paid out in EI programs was applied to the deficit and the debt when it should have been applied to the needs of Canadians, when it should have been applied to ensure that the EI program was there when workers needed it.

If that $57 billion were still there and available in the EI fund for workers today, we could do something significant about the situation of the unemployed in Canada. We could do something significant to stimulate the Canadian economy, because we know that employment insurance is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. We know that EI targets people who need money, families who need the money the most. It targets communities that have often been hit the hardest by an economic downturn. We know that every dollar that goes into an EI program when people are unemployed gets spent by those workers, by those families in those communities. It is a very efficient way of delivering assistance to individuals, to families and to communities that need it most.

We still need that kind of program. We still need that kind of reform. Sadly, that is not what is before us today. What has been offered is a specific program that looks to assist older workers with a long-term attachment to the workforce, and I do not think we can turn our backs on that.

New Democrats have been very clear what we think needs to be done instead. New Democrats have, I believe, 12 private members' bills on the order paper that would amend the Employment Insurance Act to improve it, to improve accessibility, to improve benefits, to improve EI maternity benefits for women, to do all of those things that would make it a better program, that would make it the kind of program we in this corner could be proud of and that workers across Canada could be proud of.

We are not backing off from those ideas. They are going forward. We look forward to debating them in this House and seeing if we can get the support of other parties to make those important changes to the Employment Insurance Act.

We have also worked hard to push our ideas through this House. Back in the spring on our opposition day, when we get a chance to put forward our ideas, we put forward ideas about what needs to be done about employment insurance. We said that the two-week waiting period needed to be eliminated. We said that we should reduce the number of hours required to qualify for employment insurance down to 360 hours. We said that self-employed workers should be included, finally, in this program. We also said that the benefit rate needed to be raised to reflect the needs of folks who lose their jobs here in Canada. We put that forward in an opposition day motion. We debated it for a day here in the House of Commons. When it came to a vote, a majority of members of the House of Commons supported those recommendations.

Now, if the government took this place seriously, if the government took the will of the elected representatives of Canadians seriously, I would expect it would move on those ideas, on that broader reform of the EI system, so that we could restore it to a place that would make us proud and would offer Canadians the kind of assistance they need in this very difficult time. We have not seen that kind of movement yet.

What we do have on the table today is Bill C-50, with this specific program to assist up to 190,000 Canadian workers, to put a billion dollars into expanding the EI program. Those workers need help. I do not think we can turn our backs on them. It is not what we would have done. In this corner of the House, we will keep pushing the government to make other important changes, to do the right thing on EI. However, for now, we support this particular option that is before the House of Commons.

We are not giving the government a blank cheque. We are going to judge each proposal that comes forward to this House on a case by case basis. We are not going to turn our backs on this kind of assistance for workers in Canada.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite raised a particular concern about long-tenured employees, and that is on the training. I had a personal experience in Edmonton with the closure of a major plant, and it was during a relatively buoyant economic period. The Maple Leaf plant put some 700 people out of work. Many of those people had been there 15 to 18 years. They had known no other life than that type of factory work. They had had regular income for a long period of time and then all of a sudden, they were out on the street.

It took years for them to find and eventually get employment. One of the most crucial factors for them to get employment was to go through some form of retraining. There were no jobs of the type they were used to.

This program affects so many people, so many workers in such a time of such great need. I ask my colleague, what is his impression on how the other two parties on that side could turn their backs on these workers? How could they want to take the stance for an election, which nobody across the country wants, based on the backs of the hundreds of thousands of workers who will not get these benefits if we go into an election?

I want to thank the member across the way for his comments, but maybe he could help to direct some of the public at large watching this to some type of rationale, some type of thinking on what would make two parties think they could turn their backs on all these workers and go into an election causing the workers not to get these types of benefits.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. This is a difficult debate on this particular piece of legislation.

The choice before us is to assist a certain group of workers and not proceed with the kinds of changes that many of us in this place believe are necessary to the employment insurance program.

I can understand that members from a region where seasonal work is very important would be very concerned that seasonal workers are not helped by this particular piece of legislation.

I do not think the Conservative government is behaving appropriately in addressing the needs of seasonal workers. Those workers need help during this economic downturn, like other workers, like older workers, workers who have had a long attachment to the workforce. That is a very important group that needs the attention of this place and of the government.

Younger workers are also losing their jobs at this time. It is not easy for them either. I can understand when members of Parliament who feel that is a very important group believe that this legislation does not go far enough and does not address the concerns of younger workers at all, people who have not had the opportunity to build up that attachment to the labour force that allows them to take advantage of these proposals. The government should be addressing the needs of younger workers.

Women are also having a difficult time during this economic recession. We know that women need particular attention in our EI system, and they are not getting it from the government.

What about the people in high unemployment regions? Many forestry workers in British Columbia are not going to qualify for this because they lost their jobs long before this proposal was put on the table.

This is not the best proposal in the world. We need to pay attention to other groups of workers. There is lots of room to criticize the government's approach on employment insurance, but at the same time, in this corner of the House, we have looked at this bill and said that we cannot turn our backs on those workers who are offered this assistance at this moment in time.

Judging the piece of legislation that we have before us and the willingness of the government to move in that direction, we have decided to support that to make sure that those workers, up to 190,000 older workers with long attachment to the workforce, get some assistance. We are going to keep pushing for those other workers, seasonal workers, workers in high unemployment areas, workers where industries collapsed before the recession, women and young workers to see that they get the kind of assistance they need.

The EI program that we have is a shadow of what we need. The EI program we have should have been supported by that $54 billion to $57 billion, money that was collected from workers and employers in this country. In this corner, we are going to keep pushing to see that those improvements come along for those people as well.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to start the wind-down to the second-reading debate today on Bill C-50. This is part and parcel of our government's efforts to help hard-working Canadians through these difficult economic times. Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: finding solutions to help long-term workers who have worked hard and paid into the system for years but who are having trouble finding employment through no fault of their own, extending benefits to self-employed Canadians, and getting Canadians back to work through historic investments in infrastructure and skills training.

In my riding alone there is over $50 million in projects that are ongoing, sewer- and water-related projects that were actually badly needed. Our government, through its economic action plan, has been providing these communities with moneys to go ahead with a lot of these projects and has been employing people in my riding. We are providing support to Canadians when they need it. The evidence of this is in our economic action plan, on which the latest report was announced and tabled this afternoon.

The best way to help unemployed Canadians, their families and the economy is to help Canadians get back to work. That is our number one priority. That is why our economic action plan included unprecedented investments in training for Canadians, whether or not they qualify for EI benefits, and an additional $1.5 billion, which is helping over 150,000 Canadians.

We provided an additional five weeks of EI benefits across the country. We have improved and expanded work-sharing programs. We are protecting the jobs of over 165,000 Canadians through this agreement, and almost 5,800 businesses across Canada.

We have frozen EI premiums for two years, this year and next year, so that employers can keep more money and create more jobs, and Canadian workers can keep more of their hard-earned money during these tough economic times.

We have provided an additional $60 million to help older workers because they have invaluable knowledge and experience and lots of potential left.

In our latest efforts, Bill C-50, we are supporting long-tenured workers, Canadians who have worked hard and paid their taxes and premiums for years and who are having difficulty finding new jobs. We are providing between five and 20 extra weeks of EI to help approximately 190,000 long-tenured workers while they seek new employment. It is fair. It is the right thing to do.

As the minister has also said, we are moving forward with our campaign promise to provide maternity and paternity benefits to the self-employed. We are working hard fighting the recession. We applaud those members who are helping us. Other members want an unnecessary election that will hurt the economy and unemployed Canadians. We should be working together to help Canadians who need help, and this bill does just that. I encourage all colleagues to support Bill C-50.

It is interesting to be in Saskatchewan, because it has not faced the downturn as other provinces have. In my riding we are actually looking for people. I was just talking to a gentleman who owns an automotive workshop. He is actually trying to find mechanics.

I can understand that in regions of the country where people have been working for years and years, when they get laid off and they are unemployed, there is stress that goes with that and stress in the family. I can understand how having that extra time, that longer relief to receive those benefits would be important to them. That is what the government is doing.

I cannot understand why anybody would want to oppose that. It is the right thing to do. If a person has paid premiums for 19 or 20 years, do they not deserve a little bit of extra time to help get a job? It is one thing that our minister recognized and it is the one thing that a lot of our pundits and scrutineers have said we should be doing. It is giving a wider window to those people to find new jobs and take advantage of all their benefits and experience.

As I close, I say this is a good bill. It is good for Canada. It is good for the riding of Prince Albert, and I support it.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member boast about what an excellent bill this is. As members know, however, the Bloc Québécois, people of my riding and every riding in Quebec, as well as Mouvement Action Chômage and labour do not necessarily find it all that good.

First, it does not benefit all the unemployed. Second, it creates a new category of unemployed workers. Some have lost their jobs several times these past few years, be it in the forestry or the manufacturing industry. These workers have had to apply for EI repeatedly, and there is nothing in this bill to allow them to qualify for EI.

I cannot understand. With all the money it has, with more than $55 billion accumulated in the EI fund over the past few years, why does the government not implement something that would benefit all the workers who have lost their jobs and are going through really tough times?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I said, it is hard to come from Saskatchewan and talk about employment insurance, because our province is doing so well. Maybe we should be looking at the differences between Saskatchewan and Quebec and his region.

Look at my region, for example. We had a pulp mill that was shut down. People were laid off. They lost their jobs. It was serious. The city of Prince Albert was devastated. They thought that it would never recover, yet I go back to that city and it is growing. The people are employed. The pulp mill is still shut down. The folks have found work. The families are still there. Things evolve.

Our responsibility as a government is to help those people change when there is a structural change going on in the economy, and that is what we are doing. We are trying to provide proper training. We are trying to give them a hand up. That is what we have done in Prince Albert, and it is really exciting. In my riding, a couple of sawmills were sold. They are talking about reopening them, but doing something different.

The other exciting thing in my riding is wood chips. They are not looking at it for pulp anymore, but for use in biofuels, biodiesel and ethanol. In fact, my riding is proposing to have the world's first cellulose-based ethanol plant built in it, possibly at the old pulp mill location.

There are alternatives to the forestry industry that we all have to look at, and I would encourage the member to do that. If I could help him with that, I would enjoy doing that.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am really delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this bill today, because it is an issue that affects many of my friends and neighbours and it is an issue that I think all members in the House agree is important.

It is important to debate. It is important to deal with it, and right from the start, I would like to say that this is why I find it so offensive that at least two opposition parties are more concerned about having an unnecessary and opportunistic election than they are with actually dealing with the problem of helping those who are unemployed, or with preventing some people from becoming unemployed if they are in a situation where they could maybe go into a job-sharing program instead of becoming unemployed.

These are the types of things that our government has offered and I really do find it offensive, and that is not a casually chosen word, that we have those who are more focused on having this unnecessary and opportunistic election than on dealing with the issues.

I hope that the members of the Liberal Party, and the Bloc in particular, will reconsider. They have both said they are not going to support this bill, and I hope they will reconsider, and stay away from an election that Canadians simply do not want, and deal with the issues at hand.

Our government takes the approach that the best way to deal with an issue like this is to prevent people from becoming unemployed. In cases where people do lose jobs, getting them back to work as quickly as possible is far better than focusing so much on the unemployed and employment insurance. We need to focus more on preventing that from happening and on retraining in cases where that does happen.

Retraining is very important, particularly in areas where a town depends so much upon one industry that disappears, with the forestry sector as an example, and there are simply not the jobs that there were in that industry. Our government is focused on what happens with these people and particularly if they are long-tenured workers.

I think of friends and neighbours who are in the 45- to 55-year age bracket. Not only for that age group but particularly for people in that age group, if they have been working at one job for a long period of time and they lose that job, and there is really no opportunity to get a new job in the same sector, what do they do?

It is critical to do what our government has done, which is to do things that will help them through this really difficult time. One thing is to retrain and to offer help in retraining. We are talking about retraining that will actually lead to another good job for these people. It has been proven in the past that it can be very effective. That is why we are focusing on that rather than on going to another election. It is just simply not what Canadians want.

Over this past week in my constituency, I know that people were not calling for an election. It was just the opposite. They were saying that it would be irresponsible to go to an election now. They want all parties to actually work together to make this Parliament work, and that is certainly what we intend to do.

Our government, as members know, has been focusing on the economy. That is what people want. They do not want us out campaigning. They do not want us involved in an unnecessary and opportunistic election. They want us out focusing on the economy. That is what we are doing and that is what we are going to continue to do until we get through this campaign--or through this recession, I meant to say.

It does seem like a campaign. That was a bit of a slip, but I have heard so much talk about it from the opposition that I was thinking to myself that that is where we are headed. I hope I am wrong. We are focusing on the economy and on getting jobs for Canadians, and that is what we are going to continue to do.

I will now talk about some of the things that our government has done. As I have said, this is an extremely important issue.

The member said that I should talk about the work sharing program. That is an ideal way to keep people working and to keep them from having to go on employment insurance as their only source of income. It gives them a little help along the way so that we can have people job sharing with other people still working.

In this recession, if there is one thing that is more difficult than anything else for people to deal with it is losing a job and no longer being able to provide for their family. That affects not only the person who has lost the job but it also affects the whole family, friends and the community. What we are trying to do is to deal with that and the job sharing program that my colleague mentioned is one of the ways to do that.

As well, the additional five weeks that we have added to the amount of time that unemployed workers can collect unemployment insurance is extremely important. About 300,000 families are continuing to get income as they prepare themselves to get back into the workforce because of the change that our government has made.The five additional weeks is just one of the things that we are talking about.

We know that jobs are not created out of thin air. They are created by people who start, grow and continue to operate businesses, which, obviously, is where the jobs come from.

We know as well that high taxes kill jobs. Since our government came to office in 2006, we have been reducing taxes to individuals and to corporations. Some members across the way say that we should not be decreasing corporate taxes. However, where do most of our jobs come from? They come from small businesses that are often incorporated. They are the ones that create jobs, so we have reduced corporate taxes.

Also, we have frozen EI premiums, which is something I have not heard the opposition members talking about. We have frozen EI premiums which, in effect, is keeping taxes down below what they would be through the formula that was put in place by the former Liberal government. If that formula had been allowed to continue to operate, EI premiums would be going up which is a higher tax. These things certainly would hurt job creation and we do not want to do anything that would hurt job creation.

I will close by encouraging members of the opposition to take this focus away from a completely unnecessary and opportunistic election and get the focus back to running this country and working on behalf of those who are unemployed or otherwise would be unemployed. This would benefit us all and would certainly make life easier for those families who are directly involved.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought forward some very important points on how we as members of Parliament can support what this government is doing and actually benefit Canadians instead of harm them with an unnecessary election.

Would my colleague comment further on the job training programs that we have offered? I think that in many of the industries that may be experiencing difficulties there are new opportunities for these workers and the training that can be provided will help them.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly part of the whole package that we are putting forward. It is important to provide training programs, particularly to those long-tenured workers who otherwise would find it very difficult to get back into the workplace. We have put forth a package of programs. We have done things in the past and in this legislation we have put forth a training package that will help people get back to work when they lose a job that they have had for many years.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for his speech and the hard work he has done over the years.

I note that our government brought forward additional benefits this year of about $5.8 billion. We have had more than 300,000 workers receive an additional five weeks of EI benefits. We have the enhanced EI work-sharing agreements supporting more than 164,000 workers and have extended EI benefits for long-tenured workers.

I know the member has spent many years here in the House and I wonder if he has ever seen a government that has moved so rapidly and quickly to address a problem and in such a substantive way.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from the minister and the member for Provencher. I have been in the House for 16 years and I saw the former government, which people decided to replace about three and a half years ago, overtax people year after year with extra employment insurance premiums that simply were an additional tax. The money went into general revenues and was spent. I am talking about tens of billions of dollars. The employment insurance program simply moved away from being a true insurance program to being an additional tax and that simply--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think it is right for the member to provide misinformation to the House. The previous government lowered the employment insurance payment 14 times, brought down the rates--