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.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-50. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-50, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 25 on page 1 with the following:

“(a) the number of weeks of benefits set out in the table in Schedule I that applies in respect of a claimant is increased as a result of the application of any of subsections 12(2.1) to (2.4), in which case

(i) in respect of a benefit period established for the claimant on or after January 4, 2009 that has not ended on the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force, the length of the claimant’s benefit period is increased by the number of weeks by which the number of weeks of benefits set out in the table in Schedule I that applies in respect of the claimant is increased as a result of the application of any of subsections 12(2.1) to (2.4), and

ii) in respect of a benefit period established for the claimant during the period that begins on the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force and ends on September 11, 2010, if the maximum number of weeks during which benefits may be paid to the claimant under subsection 12(2) is equal to or greater than 51 weeks as a result of the application of any of subsections 12(2.1) to (2.4), the length of the claimant’s benefit period is that maximum number of weeks increased by two weeks; or

(b) the number of weeks of benefits set out in Schedule 10 to the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 that applies in respect of a claimant is increased as a result of the application of any of sections 3 to 6 of An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits, introduced in the second session of the fortieth Parliament as Bill C-50, in which case

(i) in respect of a benefit period established for the claimant on or after January 4, 2009 that has not ended on the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force, the length of the claimant’s benefit period is increased by the number of weeks by which the number of weeks of benefits set out in that Schedule 10 that applies in respect of the claimant is increased as a result of the application of any of those sections 3 to 6, and

(ii) in respect of a benefit period established for the claimant during the period that begins on the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force and ends on September 11, 2010, if the maximum number of weeks during which benefits may be paid to the claimant under that Schedule 10 is equal to or greater than 51 weeks as a result of the application of any of those sections 3 to 6, the length of the claimant’s benefit period is that maximum number of weeks increased by two weeks.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 2 with the following:

“during the period that begins on January 4, 2009”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-50, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 6 with the following:

“begins on January 4, 2009 and ends”

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-50 and the technical amendments that are being made to it.

Bill C-50 is our government's proposed legislation to temporarily extend employment insurance regular benefits for unemployed long-tenured workers. For the purpose of this legislation, long-tenured workers are defined as Canadians who have paid EI premiums for years but have made limited use of EI regular benefits.

Of the Canadians who have lost their jobs since the end of January 2009 and made an EI claim, about one-third are long-tenured workers. Many of these people have worked in the same industry and even at the same job for most of their adult lives. However, now, because of the recession, they find themselves unemployed. Bill C-50 would give these workers additional weeks of employment insurance while they look for new jobs.

Specifically, this measure would provide from five to twenty additional weeks of EI regular benefits depending on how long a long-tenured worker has been employed and paying EI premiums. We estimate about 190,000 workers would benefit from this.

These people have worked hard, have paid their taxes and, of course, have paid their EI premiums. It is only fair and right that we should help them during this temporary downturn.

Bill C-50 is a temporary measure. It is designed to give long-tenured workers the short-term support they need to rebuild their lives. Our hope is that their fortunes will improve as the economy rebounds. However, in the meantime, we want to make sure these extra weeks of benefits available to eligible workers are available as soon as possible.

That brings me back to the amendment. Originally, the start date for eligibility was linked to the coming into force of this bill. However, we want to allow time for a full debate. At the same time, we want to ensure that all eligible long-tenured workers have full access to the extended benefits, even if royal assent is delayed.

That is why we are proposing a technical amendment to establish a fixed date of January 4, 2009 for eligibility. This would ensure that all long-tenured workers who have lost their jobs in 2009 will be eligible for additional weeks of benefits regardless of how long it takes for the bill to be approved.

The establishment of a fixed date would not affect long-tenured workers' ability to claim extended benefits until September 11, 2010, nor would it affect the payment of these extended benefits into the fall of 2011.

As I have said, Bill C-50 is a temporary measure. Long-tenured workers receiving extended benefits can expect a gradual transition back to normal terms and conditions. To that end, beginning in June of 2011, the level of additional benefits would be reduced in five-week increments. We believe that Bill C-50 would come as great comfort to long-tenured workers who may be worried about exhausting their benefits before they can find a new job.

As we have been looking at this bill over the last couple of weeks in the HUMA committee, some concerns have been raised. People wondered why there is the cutoff, how we can protect the greatest number of jobs, et cetera. It is great that NDP members have been willing to support this part. They realize that there would be almost 190,000 people who would benefit from and have access to this.

People have asked us why this would be in effect for 2009. That is clearly when a lot of the unemployment occurred. We realize there was unemployment before then, and that is why we have extended benefits by up to five weeks, and over 300,000 people have benefited. We have expanded our work-sharing program and protected over 165,000 jobs. Work-sharing programs are something that probably a lot of Canadians are not familiar with, but I think they have been very practical and they make a lot of sense.

We have companies that may be struggling and do not need all of their workers at this point in time because of the economy. EI has been able to go in and work with these companies and have them work-share, so that employees may only work three or four days a week and are able to collect some EI. I think that is a very practical measure.

As we heard from some of our witnesses last week, people are concerned about who would have a chance to claim these benefits. I think 190,000 people speaks volumes in terms of who can receive this benefit at this particular time.

The other thing I want to make note of, and we have talked about it before in previous debates, is the fact that this government has frozen EI premiums. This is a particularly difficult time right now for business. I know that freezing EI premiums has been a good thing, not only for business people and businesses but also for those Canadians who would have to pay those EI premiums.

I know there are a number of things we have been looking at, what we have been delivering and what we have been able to deliver on. We believe that some of the money that has been set aside, over $0.5 billion, for training for long-tenured workers could help up to 40,000 Canadians. We realize we have an additional $1.5 billion for training for those who are on EI and who do not necessarily qualify. We are helping about 150,000 people on top of the $2.5 billion that we already spend annually on training. I think these are important things.

We realize that as the economy shifts sometimes we lose some of these industries in towns that have been dependent on some of these jobs, certain companies and industries over time. One of the ways we believe we can help these workers is by training them for the jobs of the future. That is why this government has been very committed to continually spending money on training.

We have also looked at $60 million for helping older workers. We realize the kind of invaluable knowledge and experience they have. We realize the kind of potential they have. I think this is something that is so important, that we continue to deal with these challenging times.

I just want to talk about some of the comments that we have heard from individuals.

This is from Mr. Lazar, president of the Forest Products Association of Canada:

The investments in worker training through EI, the extension of the EI work-sharing program...are welcome initiatives that will help more Canadians keep their jobs and employers hold onto talented workers.

We have the Michelin company where 500 employees are benefiting from work-sharing. The company spokesperson, Karen Gordon, said:

The work-share program has allowed us to avoid lay-offs and maintain our workforce...The program is a win-win-win for the company, our employees and the government and positions us well to rebound quickly when market demand returns.

I want to say that obviously if some of these employees had to go and find other work in these situations, that when the economy does turn around and I do believe the economy will turn around, we would end up with companies that are not ready to hit the ground running. They would have lost valuable talent and valuable employees who were trained specifically in their jobs for these companies. It would make it difficult for some of these companies to rebound and be able to move quickly when the economy turns around.

I have some other quotes that I think are worth talking about, as well. I know that as we look at some of the challenges we have had to deal with, some of these initiatives have made a whole lot of sense in terms of being able to keep the continuity going for these companies.

I know that the NDP leader from Toronto—Danforth has said:

--without extended benefits, tens of thousands of Canadians will slide off EI and onto welfare...My party cannot, in good conscience, vote down legislation that is a step in the right direction.

I want to finish by asking the members of this House to back this amendment here and now because it is the fair and right thing to do, so that unemployed long-tenured workers can get the benefits they deserve as soon as possible and with no penalty for the time it takes this place to pass the bill.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of different options on the table and obviously one was to eliminate the waiting period. We have tried to affect the most amount of people as possible.

We heard that a number of people have been working in these industries for many years and have always paid into the system but never collected. Now that the economy has turned around on them they have not been able to collect some of these benefits for the length of time that they feel might be helpful.

We are hopeful that the economy will turn around. If we could add extra weeks for the people who have been paying into EI for many years, then they would have the opportunity to find work or hope for the economy to turn around so they could go back to the places they had been working before.

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

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague mentioned the fact that this bill is basically aimed at so-called long-tenured workers. What he did not say is that these workers have all been working for more than seven years. Other conditions also apply. They must have paid at least 30% of the annual maximum EI premiums for a number of years and they must not have received regular EI benefits for more than 35 weeks.

First of all, my colleague should recognize that, as it stands now, this bill targets only 6% of unemployed workers and that the amendment proposed today will make these new measures even less accessible. I want my colleague to consider this. He may refer to Motion No. 1 that proposes new subparagraph 1(a)(i), which reads as follows:

in respect of a benefit period established for the claimant on or after January 4, 2009 that has not ended on the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force—

This means that, right now, two large regions of Quebec are already totally excluded, namely Quebec City and Hull, and that as early as next week, four more regions will be excluded.

Is my colleague willing to admit this?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way works hard and works well on our committee.

One of the things that was of a concern when we looked at the economic action plan was the fact that maybe more EI benefits needed to be added. That is why we looked at an additional five weeks for everyone.

This government has taken a number of initiatives. Work-sharing was one of those, as was freezing EI premiums. There are a bunch of other issues and things that we have done.

People have worked 7, 10, 15, 20 years in some of these industries and these industries have been strong. They have done great things for their communities. Here they are in this position, through no fault of their own, because of what has happened in the economy.

It was decided that because some of these industries are the staple of their communities, they needed extra help. That is why we looked at extending from 5 to 20 extra weeks for some of these long-tenured workers.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, for shedding some light on this debate.

This bill is not worthy of being passed. I think that the member was absolutely right. It is a Conservative bill or, more accurately, an NDP bill. The NDP leader said that he asked for it himself. He gave himself a pat on the back. I do not know if he will be doing the same today.

The member also spoke about the fact that this is a discriminatory bill. It also appears as though he had some doubts about the number of unemployed workers who would be affected by this bill. He is not the first to question that. The government is claiming that it will cost $1 billion, and we have asked senior departmental and NDP officials how they reached this figure. We never got an answer.

Did the Liberals get one? If so, can they tell us how this figure was arrived at, and whether it is correct?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a good point. He expressed his view at committee in terms of the affront that this was to Parliament and particularly to our committee.

On October 6, the minister came to talk to us about this bill. One question raised was how she came up with 190,000 people affected and $935 million total benefit. She said that she would get back to us. In fact, we did not get an answer until we went into clause by clause. It was either my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst or my colleague from Chambly—Borduas who actually asked for those answers to the questions we asked at the first meeting, and then we got an answer. That is totally unacceptable.

A member of the Conservatives said that we did not keep asking. When we ask for information at a parliamentary committee and we are told that we will receive the information from the minister and her officials and we do not get it, that is indicative of how the government goes about its business, particularly on EI. I think it is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

He said that workers need help. We are experiencing an economic crisis and more. My Liberal colleague was at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, like the other witnesses, said that he was not enthusiastic about the bill. He thought it did not go far enough, and that more changes needed to be made to EI. The Liberals' cuts in 1996 took a toll on workers. However, at the end, he asked the committee and all the parties to vote in favour of the bill, because he did not want workers to be denied what little they have been offered.

How can the official opposition vote against something, when it is clear that the organization representing the largest number of workers in Canada is asking them to support it? One women said that her EI was running out, and she asked members to pass the bill. How can the Liberals vote against this bill, when they were the ones who made the cuts to EI in 1996?

[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.

[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.

[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, first of all, the problem is to find them and then, when we do, they are represented by unions and associations representing the unemployed, which say that rather than putting in place a measure that discriminates against their colleagues, they prefer to continue fighting for a more equitable measure. That is why Quebec is unanimous.

I see that the NDP, like the Conservatives, has turned its back on Quebec. That is their decision, that is their right. However, I would like to ask my colleague a question. He is one of the members who told the minister that he would vote for the bill because the cut-off date had to be eliminated, meaning that we must quickly adopt the bill to ensure that people can benefit from it nevertheless. I do not know if he realizes it, but the amendment allows the government to do indirectly what it said it would not do directly. I refer him to clause 1(a)(i), which indicates that those who obtain benefits at a later date are not included.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, who is passionate about this subject.

Would it make sense if we had a health care system and the government would decide that those who had not used this system should have more access to it because they were more deserving of health care than those who consistently used the system? There is a parallel between seasonal workers who need to use the system, who then get penalized under this bill and are told they are not as deserving as others. Does he see any parallels along that line?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has given a very good example. It can be applied to health care. Say that you have already used the health care system. According to this principle, you would no longer be entitled to use it. You would have to come back in seven, ten or fifteen years. That is the yardstick. The same thing would apply, unfortunately, if you had a piece of furniture in your living room that burnt and you called your insurance agent. Six or seven years later, when something else burns, you want to file a claim with your insurance company. However, you are told that you will have to wait another year. It is the same principle, except more serious because we are not talking about goods but about real life and the quality of peoples' lives.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right to say that they are stuck with this bill.

However, his leader did not say he was stuck with this bill. On the contrary, as soon as the bill was introduced, he rushed to the lobby to tell people that he had called for these measures and that this was a victory for the NDP. It is $1 billion. We are therefore stuck with this bill today.

I do not doubt my colleague's passion, and I greatly admire the way he defends the unemployed. But I find it incredible that he is defending the indefensible measures the Conservatives have put forward. He is doing the work of the Conservatives. It is unimaginable. The CLC told us half-heartedly that it was in favour of this bill, but it has also abandoned Quebec. The FTQ is fundamentally opposed to the bill.

There is one question my colleague did not answer, so I will ask it again. I know that he feels very strongly about this amendment, because he said that there should be no deadline that would delay its adoption. But paragraph (a)(i) of Motion No. 1 reads as follows:

in respect of a benefit period established...on the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, order.

Order, please. The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, you do such a wonderful job in this House cooling the passions.

I had a phone call last week from a worker who is going to lose his house this winter. He exists. He is not a phantom. He is not against Quebec as the Bloc members try to say. That worker called me and asked how quickly this was going to come through because he is in the January cutoff. He asked why this is being debated and I told him that I did not know. This is an issue about one piece of EI legislation that needs to get out.

I long ago realized with the Bloc members that I do not know how they rattle the I Ching bones in their tent on how they vote on an issue, but the Liberals voted to kill pay equity for women and did not lose an ounce of sleep. They voted to get rid of environmental protection on our riverways and did not lose an ounce of sleep. They voted to deep-six Kyoto and did not lose an ounce of sleep.

Now the Liberals come into the House and say that they cannot support any change to EI unless it is a change of everything. I am amazed at the cynicism of the Liberal Party. I gave up on the Bloc ages ago.

There is $1 billion on the table that is going to help workers. It is helping workers in my riding and ridings across Canada.

Why does my colleague think that the Liberals are putting the political aspirations of their leader who could be on EI at any time ahead of average working Canadians?

[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.

[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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that the member was going to deal with the three report stage motions.

The most important question I have for the member has to do with credibility and integrity.

Members may recall that when all of this subject matter about helping people as a consequence of the financial crisis was raised, we were talking about the 360 hour threshold for being able to collect benefits. The government said that it was going to cost $4.4 billion and then before we knew it, it went down to $2.5 billion. Ultimately, it was shown to only be $1.3 billion.

The minister herself has said time and time again that these benefits for these industries were supposed to be available for all Canadians, yet now it is very clear that they are not. The forestry industry, for example, is not going to be able to get a buy-in.

Could the member rationalize why the minister would say that these benefits would be available to all Canadians when in fact they are not?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. However, the reality is these benefits are available to all Canadians.

If someone has been working, let us say, in an auto plant or another industry for a number of years and for no reason of his or her own the plant shuts down, the amendment to the bill would allow that individual to access unemployment insurance for an extended period of time, to allow the person to go into workforce, to find a job that fits his or her needs and helps the family.

Look at what we are doing for Canadians. I am amazed by the economic action plan. The best way to help unemployed Canadians, their families and the economy is to help them get back to work. That is our number one priority and we are doing that. We are not playing politics or trying to force the government to fall for an unnecessary election like my Liberal colleagues are trying to do.

We have added an additional five weeks and 300,000 Canadians have benefited from that. Work-sharing projects have assisted 165,000 Canadians. These are examples of the things we are doing to help Canadians in this time of global recession.

We froze EI premiums for two years so employers and employees could keep their money. We provided an additional $60 million to help older workers because they have invaluable knowledge and experience and lots of potential remaining. That is very true. In my riding, the breadth of the knowledge of some of the older workers in the farm community is phenomenal.

We are doing a lot of things for unemployed Canadians and we are going to continue to do that.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member.

In circumstances where Canadians have lost approximately 500,000 full-time jobs since last fall under the stewardship of the Conservative government, help is obviously needed in the economy for these workers. Blame is not the issue. People are unemployed and they need help.

My question is twofold.

First, why is it fair to distinguish between what the Conservatives would call good or long-tenured workers as opposed to people who do not fit in this category? The Conservatives are essentially rewarding long-tenured workers who are now unemployed and not helping everybody else. What does he think about that?

Second, as an example, there is no help whatsoever for seasonal workers, such as people in the fishery or forestry industries. Some of the most hard-hit industries are getting nothing from this legislation. I am sure, being a person of good conscience, he must agree this is simply wrong.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, the simple answer to that question is, of course, no.

However, it is clear that my colleague from Chambly—Borduas is very knowledgeable about this issue. That is not surprising because he worked in the labour sector for years, and nobody understands the needs of unemployed workers better than he does. For years, he has been doing great work with the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. He is truly amazing, because even the minister herself does not know her own department's numbers even though they are right there on the website. The member for Chambly—Borduas needs to explain them to her. Does she even know what she is talking about?

The problem is that the Conservatives are coming up with these feel-good bills that will not change a thing out in the real world. That is because they want to cut back on government interference, get rid of it. Of course they want to cut benefits. The problem with cutting benefits is that our people are the ones who end up suffering.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague from Repentigny the other question. Has anyone in his riding come to him and asked him to vote against this bill?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, many people have told me to vote against the bill.

I have a very good relationship with the unions in my riding, and many union leaders have told me to vote against the bill. For example, the FTQ has told us not to vote for such a botched bill that will not help Quebeckers. The people in my riding want me to represent them, and that is a job I do humbly, but faithfully. I listen to them, and so far, they have supported me.

[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?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer quickly. First, I have never seen such a heated debate in the House of Commons. It is good to see people get worked up occasionally.

I have to admit that the NDP is doing the work of the Conservatives. It is trying to save the government's skin and pass a bill that is not in the interests of the unemployed. I find that extremely regrettable. As I said earlier, the NDP sold its soul to the devil for peanuts.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's speech.

I think he would agree that we do not agree on very many things. I think we could begin there, as a common place. I think he would probably understand that people in Timmins—James Bay voted for me and support me because I am opposed to many of the things that the Conservative Party has brought forward and continues to support.

However, I think the hon. member would also agree with me that in times of crisis we are called to put aside the larger differences we have if it means moving forward with pieces of legislation that can actually benefit people who would be in crisis.

For example, we have the bill that is before us right now. Does this address the NDP's concern about EI? Certainly not. However, the difference between the position of the NDP and the position of the Bloc and the Liberals is that they will simply oppose the bill for the sake of opposing the bill.

We want to get this legislation through because we know people who are being affected right now, who, if this bill is not going to help, will be losing their homes this winter.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague on behalf of constituents who have phoned me and asked why this bill was being held up, what kinds of games are being played, and how soon this bill was going to get through? So, I ask the hon. member, how quickly can we get this bill done, working co-operatively, so we can get help to the people who need it?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his support on these important measures which concern all unemployed Canadians.

I think he is quite right in saying that this is a very positive step forward for unemployed Canadians. It is actually quite a surprise to me that the Liberals are fighting this every step of the way. In fact, I would say that our government is fighting the recession; however, the Liberal leader is fighting the economic recovery.

I point out the Liberals because it is the Liberals who are not giving their full support to these measures. I would encourage them to give their full support to these measures. I think that, in part, responds to the question from my colleague.

If we have all the parties working together for the best interests of Canadians, then this bill will move quickly through its process and receive royal assent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a particular thing here that has come up not only in this Chamber but also in committee as well, wherein members of the opposition particularly would say that this is just one thing only. They give the impression it is a big stand-alone kind of thing. The fact is there are many other things that our government has done in respect to the unemployed. There are some good measures.

I would like to ask my colleague with respect to his particular riding, the good riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, if our vast suite of employment measures have been helpful, and how are these measures affecting his constituents in his particular riding?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly my riding, as the ridings of most MPs, has being affected by the economic difficulties which we find ourselves in. The town of Hawkesbury, for example, is a town that is centred on manufacturing, and has had plant closures and layoffs. PGW is in the process of shutting down. Ivaco has undergone many layoffs.

To answer my colleague's question, Bill C-50 is a very important measure for those Canadians who have worked all their lives or much of their lives in one job. In addition to the 190,000 Canadians that we are going to help, those long-tenured Canadians, we have undertaken other measures to help employment insurance help Canadians.

We have extended EI by five weeks. This is helping 300,000 Canadians. We have expanded work-sharing. Work-sharing is used in my riding by businesses. We are helping to protect 165,000 jobs across the country. We have frozen EI premiums, for example. This leaves more money in the pockets of both employees and employers, definitely a benefit for Canadians in my riding and Canadians in every MP's riding.

Again, I must encourage the Liberals to support our government in all of these measures but particularly with Bill C-50. They should stop obstructing positive bills like this that will help Canadians in these difficult times.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity today to put a few thoughts on the table about this very important piece of public business before us.

I want to remind folks that there are actually two issues at play in this debate. One is whether we want to have another election, which has been spoken of and is being spoken of with great trepidation and fear by certainly many of my constituents and others across this country. The other one that is rooted in this bill is the question of whether we want to move the yardsticks on EI.

When I spoke at second reading on this bill a few weeks ago, I called on the House at that time to work to find a way to, in a common cause, do the best that we could in the interest of protecting people out there who are really feeling the hurt of this recession that we have all been part of for quite some time now.

I asked the different parties, the government party, the official opposition, the Bloc, and ourselves, to work together in the interests of workers and those families affected by people losing their jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs. These jobs are not returning and many communities are still reeling, still wondering what they are going to do.

This recession, even though it may not feel like it in here, at times, is still very real out there. When we go back to our constituencies, the people we run into on the street or in the coffee houses will tell us that it has not let up and the impact is very real.

So, what has happened since then? How has the House responded to that request, to that plea by myself and members of my caucus to try to find some common cause?

Well, the Conservatives, the government party, put $1 billion on the table for some part of the unemployed work community. It is not everything that we wanted. It is not everything that obviously the Bloc and the Liberals wanted. However, it is certainly a lot more than the Liberals themselves got in their discussions with the Conservatives over this past summer when they met several times over a very important piece of work on behalf of families and workers and communities out there. They came away empty-handed.

What the Liberals decided, because they could not get any movement, any agreement from the Conservatives on this important issue, was that they wanted, instead, to have an election.

I say the time for an election has passed, at this particular juncture. The time for an election, in my view, was last January, when all of us in the opposition benches lost confidence in the government. What the government had tabled at the end of November, the beginning December in this House, was such an insult not only to us who come to work here, who understood the depth and the breadth of this recession that was coming at us, but certainly to the people of Canada. There was nothing in that package, absolutely nothing, that reflected that the government understood that we were in difficult economic times. Those difficult economic times were extraordinary in nature, akin to, some at that time said, the dynamics of the Great Depression. People were actually then beginning to lose their jobs and lose value in their pensions as well as all of the other ways that this recession has come to affect and hurt many working families and communities across the country.

We certainly led the charge at that time and offered to make the leader of the official opposition the prime minister, by way of the coalition. Those who took the time at that particular juncture to look at the package that we had put on the table, by way of a program for the new government, would have recognized that it included the changes that both the Liberals and the Bloc were expecting would happen by this, I guess, offering by the government to reform EI. It was all there.

We have not been shy to talk about the different efforts we have made by way of opposition day motions and by way of bills tabled in the House to reform EI to more adequately reflect the needs people have for support in their time of difficulty.

Here we are halfway across the river. People are really struggling. When I went back home in September of this year after the Liberals announced that they were going to bring the government down and cause an election, people said to me very clearly that that was not the time for an election. That was not the time to be spending $300 million on an election which the polls showed--and yes polls change during elections--would simply result in our ending up back here with a similar makeup of government.

When I go back to my riding even today people say to me “no election; this is not the time”. They say to me, “Tony, go back to Ottawa and see if you can find a way to work together to get something done”. People are asking because they are paying attention to what is going on here. They are asking me when Bill C-50 is going to pass, because they are at a place in their working life, and the recession is having an impact on them such that they will need the extra benefit that will come to them when this bill is passed.

One billion dollars is a lot of money. That fact may not have been reflected in the input that we heard this morning from either the Liberals or the Bloc, but I have to say that one billion dollars, however short it may fall of the total amount that is needed in terms of reform to EI, will help a lot of people at a time when they need it most.

As we keep the government going for the short term, we are also told that there will be legislation coming forward this week to reform EI for self-employed individuals. There are a number of people in my riding who are self-employed, who own small businesses, who are struggling just as those who work in big industry are, and they are concerned because they have no safety net. They are asking us to work with government to create a safety net that would give them some assistance when they need it, as they look ahead and see that things do not look so great for them either.

I am also hearing via the media that the finance minister is indicating a willingness to do something on pensions and is actually talking about the very good recommendations and ideas that the NDP are bringing forward and putting on the table with regard to pension reform. We look forward to having that discussion with the government to see if we can find some common ground so that we can give some sense of confidence to people who are either looking at retirement or living in retirement on pensions that in fact those pensions will be improved and protected.

A time for an election will come, perhaps next spring after a budget is tabled, but this is not the time. Today we need to pass BillC-50 so that one billion dollars can be put out the door and made available to workers who have lost their jobs.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today's debate has shed considerable light on how parties work in the House with respect to certain bills.

I have come to understand that the Bloc members are really there to block legislation that helps Canadians including Quebeckers. However, the Liberal situation is a little more difficult to understand. Earlier we heard the member for Mississauga South allude to the forestry sector as being seasonal, which goes a long way to explaining what the Liberals understand about the forestry sector.

However, I am very pleased that the members of the NDP particularly from northern Ontario, and we just heard from the member for Sault Ste. Marie, have given some thoughtful insight into how these technical changes to the bill might help workers across the sectors.

I was wondering if the member could expand on that a little more.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak to the technical pieces of this bill because they were done by others. However, I did speak to the need for us to move quickly to get this $1 billion out the door because there are lots of workers in northern Ontario who will benefit greatly from this and are looking forward to seeing it happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the committee with the member for Sault Ste. Marie and his colleague from New Brunswick, who have worked very hard in committee on the bill and asked a lot of difficult questions of the witnesses as they have appeared.

The member commented about the interests of workers, the impact the bill would have on long-tenured workers throughout Canada and the benefits there would be for the people who have worked hard and paid into employment insurance for many years, as have many workers in the riding of Huron—Bruce.

I wonder if the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie could comment a little more about what he feels the impacts could be in his own community. What would the constituents of Sault Ste. Marie see as the possible benefits of the bill compared to the possible benefits of having an election?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly there are workers across all of northern Ontario who would benefit from this bill passing in the House.

In my own community, people ask me on a fairly regular basis when this bill is going to pass, because they are reaching a point where they will need it in order to put bread on the table, pay bills and buy themselves a little time until the economy recovers in such a way that they can find work. It would, indeed, help a lot of people in my own community and across northern Ontario, and for that I am thankful.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Employment Insurance Act

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The question is on Motion No 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

At the request of the chief government whip, the vote on the motion will be deferred until the conclusion of government orders later this day.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in group No. 1.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-50.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #121

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 and 3 carried.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #122

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.