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.

Motions in Amendment

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-50 at report stage. This is the Conservative government's bill that will amend the Employment Insurance Act to increase employment insurance benefits for long-tenured employees.

In particular, I will be talking about the technical amendment. The amendment ensures that long-tenured workers, already receiving EI regular benefits when royal assent is obtained, have sufficient room in their benefit period to receive all of their additional benefits. We have added this amendment because we want to ensure that all long-tenured workers benefit from the additional weeks provided by the bill.

Bill C-50 was brought on by a particularly severe global recession that led to serious cutbacks in production and workers losing their jobs. In particular, it has tended to affect workers who have held down jobs for many years, often in a single industry or who face difficult prospects of getting back into the workforce. These long-tenured workers have done their jobs and they have done them well. They have paid their taxes and EI premiums, and they have not known what it was like to have been laid off or to be looking for another job.

What is really quite unsettling is that for many of them their benefits are fast running out and that is what Bill C-50 is all about. It is about treating workers who have worked long and hard with respect. It is helping them out in their time of need. Bill C-50 would provide from 5 to 20 weeks of additional EI regular benefits depending on circumstances and individual eligibility. In so doing, this initiative would provide these individuals with extra time to find alternative employment.

The amendment before the House would make certain that if they are receiving or have recently exhausted their regular benefits when the bill finally receives royal assent, they would have sufficient time to receive all their additional benefits under Bill C-50. This will benefit long-tenured workers from all sectors of the economy.

Long-term workers make up about one-third of those who have lost their jobs across Canada since the end of January and who have established an EI claim. Bill C-50 provides valuable extra time for workers who must now look for a new job. To be unemployed can be a terrible shock for someone who was not expecting it after years and years on the job.

To ensure that workers benefit from this measure regardless of the timing of royal assent, this new provision would establish a fixed date of January 4, 2009 for eligibility. Given that the measure would be available to new long-tenured claimants up to September 11, 2010, this means payment of these extended benefits would continue until the fall of 2011. It is estimated that this temporary measure under Bill C-50 would ultimately benefit about 190,000 long-tenured workers.

The amendments to Bill C-50 and Bill C-50 as a whole are part of the great economic action plan for Canada. In short, our economic action plan contains measures to help all unemployed Canadians.

Bill C-50 tells long-tenured employees that they deserve these extra weeks to help them take charge of their lives, because they have contributed so much to their former employers and now find themselves without work for the first time.

We are focusing our efforts on what is important to Canadians; we are helping those most affected by the recession; and we are investing in training and job creation. We have taken a lot of measures. The best way to help the unemployed and their families is to revive the economy and help Canadians return to work. This is our top priority.

Additional measures have been put in place for long-tenured employees. They are the Canadians who have paid premiums for many years and are having difficulty finding new jobs.

So, Canadians are benefiting from the measures included in the economic action plan. There were, for example, other measures that I will mention now. We added an extra five weeks to employment insurance, something that will help 300,000 Canadians. Job sharing has made it possible to protect the jobs of 165,000 Canadians. Freezing the EI contribution rate means that employers have more money and can create more jobs and that Canadians can keep more of their hard-earned income. Our measures include the payment of an additional $60 million to older workers, because they have inestimable knowledge and potential we must continue to tap. Finally, investments have been made to ensure that Canadians get benefits in a timely manner.

For all these reasons, I call on my colleagues to join me in voting in favour of Bill C-50.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the NDP is all about defending the indefensible. We are here today talking about Bill C-50 for one reason: a very important vote was held. The Liberals and the Bloc voted against the bill, and the NDP voted for it, using the unemployed to avoid an election. From that moment on, the NDP became the standard bearer for the Conservatives and the self-styled saviour of the people. But we can see that that is not really true.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks of the statement that the NDP is using the unemployed to try to look good in people's eyes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Repentigny on his remarks about Bill C-50.

He clearly stated that the Bloc Québécois is against this bill. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the most important reason is that basically, very few Canadians will benefit from these measures. Only 6% of unemployed workers can expect to benefit. The amendment in Motion No. 1 would reduce that number even further.

I asked around in my riding and other ridings too. Nobody would benefit from this bill. Apparently the same is true for his riding. Can he comment on that? Has anyone called him or visited his office to ask him to vote for this bill?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-50.

I must admit that, when the minister and the Minister of National Revenue talked about it for the first time, in a press conference, I was rather shocked.

It smacked of improvisation on the part of the Conservative government. Why? Purely and simply because it could have proposed something concerning EI in the budget brought down earlier in the year. What did we get? Zilch, zero, nothing. Sadly, the Liberals did not put any proposals forward. They simply made their own what the Bloc Québécois had done. The NDP, too, made further proposals.

In its economic recovery plan, the Bloc Québécois put forth a vision and ideas for unemployment insurance. There are great problems with EI, besides what the Liberals did during the mid-1990s. The Liberal members will argue that they were dealing with a totally different problem and that their action was justified. Unfortunately, we cannot go back in time.

It was totally irresponsible to plunder $57 billion from the employment insurance account. That $57 billion did not belong to the government; it belonged to the workers and employers who contributed to it.

The government has never put a single penny into that fund. It was a form of insurance, which is why it is called employment insurance. It is a contract between workers who pay into it, and employers who also contribute. So that money was there just for the workers. Since the economy was much more prosperous at the time, a surplus accumulated.

What was the first thing the Liberals did to wipe out their deficit, apart from passing it on to the provinces, as only they know how to do? They also plundered the employment insurance fund in order to balance their budget. Whenever we try to clean up this mess created by the Conservatives and the Liberals, we are not helping matters any by trying to always add more. That does not make things any better.

What the Bloc Québécois wanted was a complete overhaul of the EI system. We must make sure the government does not have complete control over the fund and that it cannot plunder it whenever it likes. I said earlier that it smacked of improvisation. However, what is even more improvised is the NDP's response.

I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst was saying earlier. I do not doubt his genuine desire to defend workers. Throughout his speech, he explained the many flaws in Bill C-50. Why is he supporting such a bad bill? I understand that an additional $1 billion is being spent on employment insurance, but when we look at the people who will be affected, we see that the NDP's response was sheer improvisation. It merely wants to prop up the government in order to stall for time for electoral reasons. Personally, I think that is the only reason. Why? Because when the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst was talking about it earlier, he was saying that there were some problems with seasonal workers, especially in his riding. As we know, many people in his riding work in the fishing industry, and that is seasonal work. This bill does absolutely nothing for those people. It does not help unemployed seasonal workers. That is the main problem.

I do not understand why the NDP is supporting the Conservative government. In January, the Liberals were the Conservatives' new friends. Now we see that it is the NDP's turn. I find that sad. It sold its soul to the devil for peanuts. They could have at least tried to negotiate a little in order to get a bit more. They did nothing. The leader of the NDP is bragging that it is thanks to him that the unemployed got an additional $1 billion. I have a big problem with that.

The reason the Bloc Québécois is against this bill is that it does not help seasonal workers. Take people in the forestry sector, for example. These are people who labour hard in Quebec's forests to try to earn a living.

They will not get any additional help from Bill C-50. The bill says that claimants cannot have received employment insurance benefits during roughly the past five years. This is extremely complicated for people in the forestry or fishery sectors. There are many fishers in Rimouski and Rivière-du-Loup. Theirs is seasonal employment.

We see that the Conservatives have done a lot of improvising and so has the NDP. It was a vaudeville act. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives never gave us any figures in terms of the unemployed who would benefit from this in Quebec. They are not even able to tell us how many unemployed people in Quebec will be affected by this bill. There is a reason for that and it is pure electioneering. This will help workers in the auto industry. It will help people in Ontario. It will help regions where the Conservatives want to make gains in the next election. We saw that they injected $10 billion into the automobile industry. I do not have a problem with them injecting $10 billion into the automobile industry. In fact, they are injecting an additional $1 billion for unemployed people who are connected to the auto industry.

However, I have a problem with the fact that, in these times, there is absolutely nothing for Quebec. The unemployed in Quebec are given nothing. That is the problem. I often explain the main reasons why I am a sovereignist. This is another good reason. The member for Prince Albert said that, when he returned to his riding, people were pleased. When I went back to my riding, people told me to vote against the bill because it does not help Quebec. That is why Quebec unions are against this bill. That is why the Sans-Chemise are against it. The reason is simple. Quebeckers quickly realized that this bill will not help any of our workers because it is tailor-made for the Ontario auto sector. That is the main problem with Bill C-50.

I was saying earlier that the NDP improvised on this one. What really makes me mad is that the NDP puts on such a show about being the great champions of the unemployed, those who do not have jobs, and yet we see that this will have no impact in Quebec. It will have very little impact in the Atlantic provinces because most jobs there are seasonal.

I am being told that I only have two minutes left but I could have gone on for hours having realized that this bill was just cobbled together. If the Conservatives really wanted to do something for the unemployed, they would have done it in the budget. They would have introduced bills well before this. They would have tried to speed up the process a little and introduced bills in January and February. We have known for months, even a year, that we are in a recession. The Conservatives have woken up one year later and, all of a sudden, introduced a bill that will not help anyone in our ridings. I do not believe anyone in my riding will be offended when I vote against this bill. On the contrary, as I took part in a great number of activities in my riding, my constituents have let me know that this is a bad bill that does not help Quebeckers.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-50 and the three report stage motions on today's order paper. Substantively, Motions Nos. 2 and 3 are fairly straightforward.

The first motion deals with a royal recommendation as well as a change to the number of weeks. The benefit period that determines the weeks required would be changed from what was originally debated by this place back at second reading before the bill went to committee.

I thought it would be useful to make a couple of comments about Bill C-50 itself. Its genesis was to take into account the fact that extraordinary things happened in certain industries across the country, some more different than others, for instance, the forestry sector.

The forestry sector, because it relies so heavily on seasonal work similar to the fisheries sector, relies on the EI system to complement its working availability. Similarly, the auto industry. If the auto industry needs to retool or rework the factory for new models or for changes in models or whatever, it relies on the employment insurance system to provide a continuity of income under the plan to fulfill its purposes.

The petroleum industry, though, is a bit different. It does not rely on a ready and available workforce because it has down times and up times. The petroleum industry, particularly in the west, has grown enormously. We can see that by the shift in population, the demand for housing, the rise in prices of housing and all kinds of other things that happen. It had a very the stable workforce.

When the crunch came and the price of oil went down, all of a sudden there was this exodus of people from the petroleum industry. These people are the ones who will benefit the most from Bill C-50. Most of them are long service employees. The bill will get them more benefits than they would have otherwise been entitled to receive.

Table 1 in the legislative briefing notes lays out the level of benefits that people could get. Someone in the seven to ten year group would get five weeks. The table goes right up to 12 to 15 years. Someone in that group would get an extension of benefits of about 20 weeks. That is pretty substantial. There are a number of categories but I will not go into them.

This was basically to look at employees who had served for a long period of time, were not regular claimants of EI, and for no reason of their own had been laid off. This would allow a super benefit, as it were, during a certain period. The amendments under report stage Motions Nos. 2 and 3 indicate that the benefit period would begin on January 4. The benefit period would be retroactive to that date rather than when the bill actually received royal assent.

I asked a question earlier of an hon. member about the whole EI discussion. A special task force was established between the official opposition and the government to look at some of these questions.

It really concerns me that there was a void of information coming from the government representatives to the task force as to the kinds of things at which we could look. The task force was looking at the 360 hour eligibility base. If people got 360 hours within the time prescribed, they would qualify for benefits. It also was looking at the costing. It was interesting to note that the 360 hour benefit period was summarily dismissed by the government members of the task force, the minister being one, because they said that the cost of implementing the benefit level was $4.4 billion, and it was just too much.

We would think that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, who is responsible for the Employment Insurance Act and who has a full department of people who know much it costs for a certain level, would have the tools and the resources to know approximately how much it would cost if we were to change one of the variables. That was not the case. Subsequently we had some different assumptions. In fact, the cost of it would only be $2.5 billion. That is quite a bit different. That is $1.9 billion less than the Conservatives had said when they summarily dismissed the whole discussion.

Then after we got other third parties involved and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and that is a whole story in itself, the estimates for introducing that level benefit came down to $1.3 billion compared to what the Conservatives initially said as being $4.4 billion. How can they be more than 300% off the actual cost of introducing those changes, when they are the government, when she is the minister, when she has a whole department and she knows exactly all the variables and how they work?

It leads to a question of credibility, and I know a number of the other members who have been concerned about the bill have been concerned about the equity. We do not have unlimited dollars and we just cannot holus-bolus spread it around. However, the minister had said very clearly, and other members have affirmed this, that this benefit was to be provided for all Canadians. It was estimated that some 190,000 people would benefit.

When the members did their homework and when they started to look at the areas in which there was long service of employment but reliance on employment insurance benefits, some industries were more advantaged and others were not getting a fair share. This is the kind of thing that really concerns Canadians because they cannot trust the government to tell them the truth. It really comes down to that. This is exactly what the bill comes down to.

When I look at the charts and the various gradations, somebody has gone to a lot of work to make this more complicated than it should have been. If the real intent was to assist long-service workers who found themselves all of a sudden out of work for a protracted period of time and they had not been users of the system, there could have been a very simple approach to it, but there was not. It begs the question, why?

I know the premiers were on side to get these changes done, but the summer task force was totally shut down. The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who was on the committee, told me what was happening. He said that when the government was ready, it set up a meeting and it was agreed that any of the proposals, any of the information that any party wanted the group to consider would have to be circulated to the members in advance. Not once did not happen. Every time the government members had something to submit, what did they do? They brought it and tabled it when the meeting started. They did not give anybody a chance to really understand what was there.

It shows a lack of good faith, a failure to show that a person could be trusted. It is a sloppy bill that will not help all Canadians. It will only help some and I know who they are.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, those are two good questions.

One thing about being in government is that one wants to be responsible. When I speak to people in my riding, they want to ensure we treat unemployed people responsibly. They actually like the idea that if people have been paying EI premiums for 15 years, they should get a little more benefit.

I am sure the hon. member would agree. Why would he be treated the same if he has been paying premiums for 15 years as the guy who has been working for only a year? There has to be a little give and take in the system and that is what we are doing. We are allowing older workers to get jobs and giving them a bit more time to find proper jobs.

The member is sincere when he says we should not be playing politics, but in question period or any other time in the House, that is exactly what is going on. In the agriculture committee, all the member for Malpeque does is play politics. When the member talks about playing politics and the seriousness of it, he should quit playing politics, get serious and vote for Bill C-50.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the House about a technical amendment we would like to make to Bill C-50. We are seeking to establish a fixed date of January 4, 2009 for eligibility.

This is our government's proposed legislation to temporarily extend employment insurance regular benefits for unemployed long-term workers. Bill C-50 would give these workers additional weeks of employment insurance while they look for jobs. In the original draft of the legislation, the start date for eligibility was tied to the date of royal assent. However, if royal assent is delayed for any reason, there could be a negative impact on employment insurance clients. That would be unfair.

To ensure that long-tenured workers can get all of their additional weeks of EI regular benefits regardless of timing of royal assent, we are proposing to establish January 4, 2009 as the only eligibility date. We would then remove the reference to an alternate timeframe of nine months prior to the coming into force of the legislation.

This would ensure that all long-tenured workers who lost their jobs in 2009 would be eligible for additional weeks of benefits, regardless of the length of time needed to approve the bill. We estimate that about 190,000 Canadian workers would benefit from these measures. The establishment of a fixed date would not affect the ability of long-tenured workers to claim extended benefits until September 11, 2010, nor would it affect the payment of these extended benefits into the fall of 2011.

Let me explain. For example, Jason has been working in a plant manufacturing cars for the past 15 years. At the beginning of 2009, there was a drastic reduction in demand and by January 9, he had lost his job. He applied for EI and was entitled to receive EI regular benefits until December 11. Because of the fixed date of January 4 eligibility, Jason would be eligible to receive additional weeks of anywhere from five to 20 weeks under Bill C-50.

Long-tenured workers have worked hard and paid taxes. They have paid their EI premiums. It is only right and fair that we should help them during this temporary downturn. Bill C-50 is a temporary measure designed to give those long-tenured workers the support they need to rebuild their lives. Our hope is that their fortunes will improve as the economy recovers. In the meantime, we want to make these extra weeks of benefits available to eligible workers as soon as possible.

There would be a gradual transition back to the normal terms and conditions. Beginning in June 2011, the level of additional benefits would be reduced in five-week increments.

We want to make these extended benefits available to as many unemployed long-term workers as possible and we want to get them access as soon as possible.

I ask members of the House to show their support for Canadian workers by backing these amendments. This is just an example of what the Conservative government has done to help unemployed workers. It shows that we are willing to get down to work and make the necessary changes that are required in this global downturn.

I go back to my riding of Prince Albert and look at the people there. When I come to Ottawa and represent them, I look at the things we have done as a government that have helped benefit those people. This amendment in Bill C-50 is an example of the work the Conservative government is doing.

In closing, I trust that members will quit playing politics with this legislation, will get down to work and will join us in passing Bill C-50.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I see Liberals on EI, I will not be sorry because I saw how many people they put on EI and how many people they took off EI when people were still in need.

This is about a billion dollars or half a billion dollars. I hope it is $100,000. I hope people do not lose their jobs, but if they lose their jobs, we need to have something in place to help them.

Does Bill C-50 go far enough? No. That is not what we are asking for. We have been asking for more than that for the workers. In France, people are looked after. Even the United States brought its EI up to help the workers who had lost their jobs.

This does not go far enough. The Liberals and the Bloc say no to the workers all across the country, including in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that my leader pointed out that we called for changes to employment insurance and that now we are seeing changes.

The Bloc Québécois leader is not in a position to stand up and say that he called for changes to employment insurance and got them. I do not think that the Bloc has anything to boast about. Maybe the Bloc feels sad that it did not get anything for Quebec workers. Maybe it feels jealous that the NDP did. Maybe that is what they find so disheartening. Maybe that is why my Bloc colleague is feeling so discouraged.

But maybe he doesn't feel that way because he is glad that the NDP will be voting for this bill. Maybe he would be upset if the NDP voted against it. He would be terribly upset if the NDP said no to all those Quebec workers. That is why he is glad that he can hide behind the NDP and not vote for the bill because the NDP will vote for it. That way, his party can keep up its NDP-bashing.

Maybe it would be better if, instead of talking to unions, the Bloc talked to workers who have no money and whose benefits are about to run out. We want to give these people up to 20 extra weeks of employment insurance benefits. Maybe the Bloc should talk to workers. Maybe it should talk to a single mother who has lost her job and has no money for her kids. Maybe it should ask her if she thinks that Bill C-50 is a good idea. I am sure that she would tell my colleague that he is making a terrible mistake.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-50 and, at the same time, to see the Bloc Québécois, which accuses us of siding with the Conservatives, siding so strongly with the Liberals, the grandmasters of EI cuts. I was listening to the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour talk about how discriminatory this bill was, how it does not help all people, all workers. He was wondering how the government could be doing so little in a piece of legislation put forward during times of economic crisis.

I do not want to speak only of the Liberals in my speech, but I recall that, in 1996, there was a crisis in the fisheries industry in the Gaspé, in New Brunswick and throughout Atlantic Canada. This industry was going through a crisis, and that was when we experienced the worse cuts to employment insurance. Strangely enough, at the time, the Liberals were not concerned about discrimination. In some places, 700 hours of work were required, and in others, 420 hours. Claimants were all workers, good hard-working people. Yet, there were different classes of workers. In some regions, in spite of having worked more hours, workers did not qualify for EI. It is funny how we did not hear anything about discrimination at that time. This morning, however, all we are hearing about is discrimination.

Ask me the following questions and ask them of the NDP. Does the bill go far enough? Absolutely not, not at all. This is not an NDP bill. It is a government bill. We have looked at the bill. Are we happy with it? Absolutely not. We are not happy with it. Is the employment insurance system the same for everyone? Did the Liberals vote with us on the 360 hour standard of eligibility? They never did when in power. Did the Liberals approve the 12 best weeks formula when in power? Of course not. We have seen people suffer in our region because of the cuts to EI. Who has made EI what it is today? They should not come and suggest today that the current economic crisis is to blame. We had an economic crisis in our region at those days, and the human resources minister was from Atlantic Canada. It was one of our own who, as a minister, made cuts to EI. If we want to talk about discrimination, there has been discrimination in the past and there is still discrimination today.

But can we say no to a particular group? I know the Bloc Québécois is pressing the question of whether it is $1 billion and 190,000 people. I hope we will never reach that number. I hope that people will not lose their jobs. I hope they will not need to claim employment insurance benefits. But what am I going to tell people back home, when last week, Aliant said it was closing its doors in Bathurst and Shippagan? What am I going to tell people back home, when TNS Canadian Facts, another call centre company, has announced this morning that it is closing down in Bathurst? These are people who have worked there a long time and are not eligible for employment insurance. If we do this, at least, people will be entitled to benefits. Their benefits will be extended.

I am certain that Quebec is not exempt from this. There is an economic crisis in Quebec as much as anywhere else. When the Bloc Québécois member says that Quebec and Quebeckers are being ignored, that is not true. This is not a bill put forward by the NDP. We are not ignoring them. There is a bill and there are people in Quebec who are going to have the chance to receive benefits. The fewer unemployed, the better it will be, just as it is where I come from.

How can we say no to these people? Some will say that we have opposed certain employment insurance measures at certain times. Yes, we said no to certain changes to employment insurance when they were part of budgets, when the government wanted to freeze public service salaries, freeze RCMP salaries, when they told women they would not be able to go to court if they wanted pay equity. When we looked at the budget, yes, we voted against it because it was a bad budget that was going to harm other people. In this case, yes, there are people who are not receiving benefits and we would like them to receive benefits. Yes, I would like the people back home, the seasonal workers, to be able to receive employment insurance. Yes, they have been working for years.

Last week I spoke with a woman from Prince Rupert who is a union representative. She explained that the same thing is happening where she comes from as where I come from. There are closings in the fish plants and closings in the fishery. It is the same problem.

How many times have we voted on bills in this House when they were not for the benefit of all Canadians? For the five additional weeks we voted on three or four years ago, that was only because the unemployment rate was at a certain level. Not everyone was entitled to the five additional weeks. When we went for the 14 best weeks, not all Canadians, and not all Quebeckers, received that. At that time, the Bloc Québécois voted for the measure. It was discriminatory, everyone should have known that.

Today, we have a bill that can help a group of people. This is what we must vote on, and the decision we must make is whether or not we will grant that help. The Bloc Québécois has decided to vote against the bill. That is their right, and I respect that. The Liberals have decided not to help long-tenured workers, people who have worked for whatever number of years is required in the bill. They will not support it. That is right. The NDP has decided that even if there is not much money, we can still take it out of the EI fund to give to these workers. I would prefer to give the workers this money than to leave it in the consolidated revenue fund, where the EI fund's $57 billion surplus is found. That is what the vote will be on. Do we want this money to be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund, where it went in the big Ottawa theft from the EI fund, and given to certain workers?

The Canadian Labour Congress appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and made it very clear. The president, Ken Georgetti, very clearly said that he was not happy, but that he still wanted us to vote in favour of the bill. He said that his members across the country are in need, and that is why he does not want us to vote against the bill.

The Quebec labour unions also appeared. The FTQ representative said that instead of a bill, it could have been a pilot project. He was not very happy it was a bill and was not in favour of it. A pilot project would have been just as discriminatory as a bill. I fail to see the difference. People can go and read the blues, the record of the discussions. He said it very clearly. He said it should have been a pilot project. I asked him what that would change. He told me he would not have had to come here and argue about something that was not going to happen anyway. He was not really opposed to working people getting it. When he said it could have been a pilot project, I inferred that would have been acceptable. The government certainly could have decided to have a pilot project. That would have been faster. It would have been done and finished, as they have with other bills. But we do not have a pilot project today, we have a bill. We are stuck with saying yes or no. The Liberals took a $57 billion surplus from the employment insurance fund in 1996. They are the ones who made this change during an economic crisis in the Atlantic region. There was then and still is an economic crisis there. When someone asks whether we have been affected by the economic crisis, we say we have been in it for 100 years. We know all about it. This is not the first time we have been mistreated by the Liberals or the Conservatives.

The biggest mistake in the employment insurance system was back in 1986 when the government decided to take the EI money and put it into the consolidated revenue fund. Employment insurance has been the government’s cash cow ever since. Who is dependent on employment insurance? It is not working people any more, it is the government, because there are big surpluses in it.

Is the NDP ashamed to vote in favour of this bill? Not at all. It will not do anyone any harm and will help some people in Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario and British Columbia. Does it go far enough? No, it does not. The NDP has bills calling for 360 hours, the best 12 weeks, getting rid of the two week waiting period, and giving employees 60% of their salaries. These are bills that have been tabled by the NDP and we have more of them. We have 12 of them, while the Bloc Québécois has only 6. Does Bill C-50 go far enough? No. Will it help working people? Yes, and the NDP is proud to vote in favour of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a way, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas is accusing the NDP of wanting to pass Bill C-50 with the Conservatives. I am in favour of this bill. We have said that we will vote in favour of this bill. However, it is as though the hon. member from the Bloc is trying to tell us that no one in Quebec would benefit from this. As though no one has worked 12 months a year in the last seven to ten years and no one is affected by this economic crisis.

I agree with the hon. member from the Bloc when he says that we need more than this and that everyone should benefit from it. He is very familiar with our bills. We are familiar with theirs. We have worked together. It is true that we want better than this, but there is a bill currently on the table.

My question for him is the following: is he prepared to say that in Quebec no worker will benefit from this bill and that the workers he is saying no to will be pleased? People who have worked for 10 or 15 years and who are going through this economic crisis would lose the little bit that the House of Commons is giving them. We are not voting on a budget, but on a specific bill that could help certain workers. I am proud of that and I will say so in my speech. At least we will be helping, even if we are not in the government. A government is in place and it is offering something for workers. This is not the first discriminatory bill. I have seen the Bloc vote in favour of similar bills that were not good for all Canadians. I will talk about that later in my speech.

I would like to know whether the hon. member is prepared to say no to certain long-tenured workers who have lost their jobs in Quebec during the economic crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the House on my party's behalf about this important bill, Bill C-50.

I think it is important because it shows the Conservative government and the NDP's true colours when it comes to employment insurance. It is quite disturbing. This is a bad bill, and we do not support it.

We are not the only ones in Quebec who do not support this bill. People are pretty much unanimous. Unions are unanimous, and they represent 1.2 million workers. If we consider the families of those workers as well, over 2.5 million of the 8 million people in our province are against it. So are all unemployed workers' organizations.

The people most affected by this bill will be unemployed workers, and their organizations do not like it. I will go on to explain why they do not like it. The forestry industry is unanimous in its opposition as well.

The Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners has spoken out in favour of this bill, but when asked if people in Quebec felt the same way, they said no. We came to the same conclusion. The reason such unanimity exists in Quebec is that the Conservatives are turning their backs on Quebec, and so is the NDP.

Why does everyone agree on this? My colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour explained why earlier: this bill is discriminatory because it introduces the utterly distasteful and unjustified principle that unemployed workers fall into two camps: good ones and bad ones. This bill is also mean because it is designed to exclude as many people as possible.

Earlier, my Conservative colleague said that this bill targets long-tenured workers. It is arbitrary because it excludes workers who have worked fewer than seven years. Nobody who has worker fewer than seven years will be affected by this measure or benefit from it.

In addition, all workers who have worked for more than seven years but who did not contribute 30% of the employee's premium for 10, 12 or 15 years, for example, depending on their situation, will also be excluded.

And individuals who have been unfortunate enough to receive employment insurance for more than 35 weeks will be excluded, even if they have worked for more than seven years. Who is left? Not very many people, considering that everyone with a precarious job is also excluded. When we do the math based on the government's approach, we reach the conclusion that only 6% of EI recipients can hope to benefit from this bill. That is a far cry from 190,000 unemployed. We are talking about roughly 47,900 people.

When officials come to talk to us about 190,000 unemployed, they say that this will extend over three years and so we have to multiply by the number of generations of unemployed. At that rate, we could say that instead of spending $21 billion a year on national defence, our government will spend $420 billion because the spending is spread over 20 years. You can take that sort of logic to extremes. But, in a budget debate, the government is used to quoting figures based on a snapshot of the economy at a given point.

How many workers are unemployed at present? Between 1.7 million and 1.8 million. How many people are receiving benefits? There are 765,000. If we take that figure and multiply it by 6%, we get 45,900.

Why is the government misleading the House and the public? By inflating the figures, it is trying to make people accept the unacceptable, namely principles that are completely disgraceful and totally discriminatory. That is what the NDP is doing. The government is making entitlement contingent on hours of employment, how much the claimant has paid in premiums and how many weeks of benefits he or she has already received.

The Conservative member said that long-tenured workers are people who have worked hard, as if everyone else had not worked hard. He said that they are people who have paid taxes, as if everyone else had not paid taxes.

We do not buy that. We cannot support that. Parliament is going to support discriminatory rules, but we are totally opposed to that. This bill is a symbolic political gesture that the government is trying to justify by dressing it up in lace and frills. It is also an insult to people's intelligence. It is important to say here that the government is not going to address the need for comprehensive EI reform with piecemeal measures like these, which create good and bad classes of unemployed workers.

The parties, including the Conservatives, have agreed on some measures in the past, measures that we in the opposition unanimously agree on here today, including for example, improving accessibility to employment insurance, since the majority of workers have been deliberately excluded from EI benefits. The previous government wanted to accumulate a surplus and use that money for other things. So unemployed workers and employers were relieved, not to say robbed, of $57 billion. The government used that $57 billion for other things.

These measures include the 360-hour eligibility criterion with, of course, the possibility of a 70-hour reduction, based on the number of unemployed workers per region. Instead of 45 weeks, 50 weeks of benefits are needed, as well as 60% of earnings. At present, people received 55% of their income. These are some of the measures on which we agreed. Our NDP friends have been fooled by the smoke and mirrors, and have forgotten these crucial measures, along with the notion of being entitled to benefits based on good faith. Furthermore, the two week waiting period must be eliminated.

Instead, we have a government that has locked up the employment insurance fund. It is making sure that premiums remain at their minimum, so there are not enough resources to improve the system, even though everyone agrees that the current problem is not related to premiums. People are willing to accept higher premiums in order to benefit from social measures that will allow people who unfortunately lose their jobs to continue to feed their families.

We are seeing the old Conservative theory of taking away every possible means, so they can later justify the fact that they do not want to improve conditions for our citizens. The Conservatives did this with the GST. They are doing it again with employment insurance premiums.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, a number of people said that they did not like it, that they did not think it was a priority but that it was all they would get from the government. That is hardly a ringing endorsement.

However, in terms of supporting this, in January, the government's inadequate response was an extra five weeks for everybody and more money for employment and training. That was much more than Bill C-50 but members of the NDP voted against it. In their defence, they had indicated that before they saw it, so they have a certain defence in that case, but that was for everybody. They voted against it and they condemn us because we stand up against a discriminatory bill that hurts some people. I do not think that is consistent.

Bill C-50 is not the right response to the current economic conditions and we are opposed to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today discussing Bill C-50, which has now come back from committee.

The position of the Liberal Party has not changed on the bill. We think that there are numerous problems with this bill in terms of what it does to impact people who were the victims of a very difficult recession in this country.

It was a very interesting process at committee. Normally, at a committee, when somebody comes with a bill, particularly a government bill, we have a number of witnesses who say, “I like it. Go ahead”, and others who say, “I do not like it. Stop it”. What we had this time, and I am sure the member for Chambly—Borduas would concur with this as well as other members of the HR committee, were largely two groups of people who came to the committee.

We had people who came and said, “This is not a good bill. This is a discriminatory bill. It does not help enough people. It does not go back far enough. It does not do enough to cushion the blow of this recession. You should vote it down”.

We had others who came to the committee and said, “We do not like it. It is not our priority for employment insurance. We know that there are further changes that are necessary, but with these guys, we better take what we can get. In light of that, perhaps you should support it and try to get something else”.

We have been talking about employment insurance in this House, as Canadians have in the country, for the better part of the last year. Before that, it was an issue, but particularly in the last year with this recession, people have been very concerned. What have people been asking about? What have people called for in terms of EI?

For a number of years, we have had public sector unions, policy think tanks and a host of people who have looked at this issue. They have said that there are ways in which we can adjust EI. I think we can all understand that. They have said, “There were changes made in the 1990s as a result of the economic circumstance that this country was in. Maybe we should look at what we did then. Maybe it is time to have some new reforms. What would you do?”

There are people who have been talking for a long time about changes: a national standard of 360 hours or some such variation on that national standard; eliminating the two week waiting period, as our colleague from Brome—Missisquoi has in a private member's bill that will be coming back to this House; increasing the rate of benefits from 55% to 60%; looking at the divisor rule; and looking at how we calculate benefits and perhaps going to the best 12 weeks.

There are all kinds of ways that we can change employment insurance. I would not say that we should do all of those things. I am an advocate for employment insurance reform. I do not know exactly what I would do, but I know I would not let it go the way it is now. I know that I would invest in employment insurance so that people who need the benefit can get it.

I do not think people are fully aware in Canada that our EI system is not as robust as most nations to which we want to compare ourselves. We think we are very generous in terms of employment insurance. We should keep in mind that this is the money that employers and employees have put aside for difficult times, but our system does not fare well compared to some others.

In the 1990s, when the economy was good and it was strong and we had surpluses, we reduced EI premiums for both the employers and employees for 12 years in a row. That was one period of time. We could argue about what should have been done then, but in a recession, in a difficult time, this is when we should invest in EI.

We have had the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Caledon Institute, the CLC and the CAW telling us what things they would like to see, but it is not just them. TD Economics is urging the government to immediately ease the VER and extend EI. VER is the variable entrance requirements. We need to ensure that people get access to EI across the board.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce gave advice to the government last year, when it suggested that the federal government could consider temporary measures to ease access to EI during the recession, reducing the number of weeks required to qualify for benefits and suspending the two week waiting period.

That was the Chamber of Commerce in December saying we should look at the two week waiting period. The CSN referred to the waiting period, the universal entitlement of 360 hours, and increasing the benefit level.

The wife of the Minister of Finance gave him very good advice earlier this year when she suggested, in her complaints:

--many people who lose a job cannot qualify for EI under current rules. Ideally, the federal government will quickly reform EI to better meet Ontario's needs.

She was talking about a standard for employment insurance that would better meet the needs of Canadians, and in her case, of Ontarians.

We had all the premiers, it seems, in the country, all the western premiers, suggesting that we needed to do something about a national standard. We had the premier of B.C. saying that if people fell off EI, then they were going to go onto the provincial welfare rolls.

We had premier after premier saying that something needed to be done to reform EI but Bill C-50 does not do that. It is clearly not enough.

Members of the House have put forward private member's bills. In March, the New Democrats put forward an opposition day that called for the elimination of the two week waiting period, a national standard of 360 hours going to 60% of insurable earnings, going to a best 12 weeks divisor and referring to some kind of a self-employment piece. Those are the priorities of the New Democrats, which I think reflect the priorities of many Canadians. Bill C-50 is woefully short on that measure.

The head of the CAW, in referring to Bill C-50, said that Canadians “need a full loaf of bread”. He suggested that it was just crumbs.

Armine Yalnizyan of CCPA indicated that the program's restrictions act against the nature of much of Canada's industry.

Laurell Ritchie of the CAW said that it was only handfuls.

The bill has not received any kind of universal enthusiastic support. Some people have said that perhaps we need to take what we can get and move on, but we need to look at this seriously and ask whether this is good legislation and whether we can seriously adopt a piece of social infrastructure that discriminates against so many Canadians.

The government's own estimates are that 190,000 people will benefit. I do not know if that is true. I asked people at committee if it was true but they could not tell me because they did not have access to the kind of information that HRSDC does. What does the government do with that information?

In the summer, I remember the Conservatives suggesting that a 360 hour national standard would cost $4.4 billion. The next week they apologized and said that it would be $2.5 billion. It turns out that it would be less than $1.3 billion. Therefore, we do not have a lot to work with on this.

Pierre Céré came to committee on Bill C-50 and said:

First, we disagree with the approach taken. The government has chosen to use legislation to play a political trick...when [on September 14] it could simply have announced a pilot project....

He suggested that it did not even have to be in legislation. He also said “the problems with the employment insurance system have not been addressed at all, including the pressing problem of eligibility”.

At the end of July this past summer, the 10 premiers of the 10 provinces called on the Prime Minister to resolve this problem. Most Quebec municipalities signed a declaration demanding that the eligibility question be solved at the federal level. The FCM, as well as many economists, observers, associations, unions and even the churches called on the government to resolve the eligibility problem.

We have a bill that is a discriminatory. As I referenced earlier in a question for my colleague, the chair of our committee, the minister herself, in touting the five week extension, said that extending five extra weeks of benefits which was then only available in some regions to all Canadians. So she is saying that what we are doing is giving a benefit that some Canadians have to pilot projects and we are giving it to all Canadians. What could be more fair?

Now we have a circumstance where the government has introduced a bill that picks winners and losers. It does not cushion the blow of what is called the early shock troops of the recession, those who lost their jobs a year ago now and are not eligible for any of the benefit no matter how long they have been on EI. We do not think that is fair.

The conundrum that we have as a party is what to do in this circumstance. We do not want to see people further disenfranchised. For example, when the bill came to committee it would have come into force in a way that meant if we gave it suitable study it would mean people who were laid off after January 4 might not get benefits. We indicated at committee that while we did not support the bill, one of the reasons we did not support it was that it did not affect enough workers. We certainly did not want to disenfranchise any more.

In our view, Bill C-50 is not a suitable response to the recession. It decides that some people are worthy of employment insurance and some are not. We do not think that is the way Canadians look at our social infrastructure system. We do not think that would be done with medicare or with any other social infrastructure. We think it is the wrong way to go about it. It is not a suitable response and we will be voting against the bill when it comes back.

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

Mr. Speaker, as chair of our committee, my colleague has heard testimony from people about Bill C-50.

I want to ask him a question about one of the real concerns that has been raised about this bill, which is its clearly discriminatory nature in terms of picking winners and losers, indicating that some people should be entitled to extended benefits and some should not. I am quoting now from the 2009-10 estimates where the minister herself, in touting the extra five weeks that was provided to all EI beneficiaries, says:

--including extending five extra weeks of benefits, which is now only available in some regions, to all Canadians.

She is saying this is a good thing because it goes to all Canadians regardless of their circumstances and what industry they come from. That is a good point. There is some sense to everybody getting benefits equally.

However, this bill goes in the other direction. This is now saying that some people should be entitled to benefits and some should not.

I wonder if my colleague could address the discrepancy between those two positions taken by the same minister.