Bill C-56 (Historical)

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act and other Acts by establishing a scheme to provide for the payment of special benefits to self-employed persons who are not currently entitled to receive them.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

First of all, I had objections to the deferment, but then I have heard Mr. Lessard say that 15 or more amendments have come in that we hadn't had. I've heard Mr. Martin say that he understands we want to get some government legislation through quickly—specifically Bill C-56—before the year is out. Those are issues of concern.

But if we're able to agree that we would do Bill C-56 starting this Thursday and concluding, as far as I'm concerned, on Tuesday and Thursday of the week following and report it to the House.... I don't know that we would need a third meeting, but if that were necessary, it could be arranged, and so be it. That would cancel the travel for next week and move it to December 1, which seems reasonable. After that, we could deal with this bill more fully at that point, and before we broke for the end of the session. That makes good sense.

With that understanding, I would certainly be prepared to consider a motion like this and perhaps have Mr. Kennedy withdraw his present motion, if he were so inclined. It would still achieve what he wants to achieve, basically.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

In the interest of the good harmony that exists in this committee in trying to get as much done as we can and accommodate people, and understanding that a significant number of important amendments have come forward with respect to Ms. Davies' bill that she wants to look at in all seriousness, we should give the necessary due consideration to her request for a deferral until a later date. It is a serious piece of public business that we're doing on that front. It isn't something she brought to the table; other parties have brought this to the table, and they have every right to.

I would suggest, in light of some of the other business that is before the committee.... I thought we would have this discussion later in the committee about getting from now to the end of the year. We have some government business that we have to do because it takes precedence. That's Bill C-56, which we start next Thursday. According to the schedule we were looking at until now, we were supposed to travel the following week to western Canada to study poverty. That's now a challenge, because understandably the government wants to see Bill C-56 through committee and back into the House before the break.

My suggestion, for others to consider, is that we do Bill C-56 on Thursday next week and sit as many meetings as we need to in order get it done; that we travel west the first week of December; and that when we come back, in that week before the break we deal with Bill C-304.

I put that on the table for people's consideration.

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

It is even wiser, Madam Chair, because one of the reasons why the committee has been asked to postpone our trip for the study on poverty is that the government wants us to study BillC-56as a priority. I do not think that we can do the clause-by-clause study of this bill today because I doubt that we can consider so many amendments in two hours.

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus)

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question because it is an important one.

He is right when he says that a sector of the economy that has been affected by successive layoffs and where workers needed to draw EI benefits over the years does not necessarily benefit from the extension that has just been given. However, one cannot say that Quebec workers will not benefit as much as other Canadians from the improvements included in Bill C-50. Tens of thousands of Quebec families will benefit from the bill and that is the reason why I was so disappointed to see that the Bloc voted against the measure. I really do not understand why the Bloc did that. Earlier, I alluded to the ideological approach of the Conservatives. Sometimes, the Bloc also has an ideological approach to issues.

As for Bill C-56, it has already been shown that the contributions will vary from one jurisdiction to the other. Since Quebec already pays, the contributions asked from Quebec workers will be lower than in the other provinces. I can illustrate that with the example of daycare centres that have received subsidies from the federal government. Since Quebec already had its system in place, the money was simply transferred to the province. On that issue, we succeeded.

As for the member's last question, I will say that, yes, we must once again make major reforms in the EI system in the best interest of protecting the entire population.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of our colleague from the NDP.

As we know, Bill C-50 does not meet the needs of the forestry workers in Quebec. They have told us so. The bill was designed more for automobile workers in Ontario. We are not against that, but we wanted the government to support the forestry workers as well. Bill C-56 does not help self-employed workers in Quebec at all, since they already have access to a parental leave insurance plan.

My question is quite simple. Does the member not agree that the patchwork reform of the employment insurance plan, proposed by the Conservative Party in Bill C-50, is of no help to workers in Quebec?

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to debate the merits or demerits of Bill C-395 today.

Let me begin by acknowledging that labour disputes do affect Canadians, and sometimes Canadians do find themselves unemployed at the end of such disputes. My colleague from the Bloc obviously cares about these workers, as do all members of the House. I am sure of this, but we must go beyond good intentions. As the old saying goes, good intentions can lead us down a path on which we would be better not to go.

We must probe the potential policy and legal impacts of these proposed amendments on the Employment Insurance Act. We must ensure that any changes to the employment insurance system are based on hard evidence, and we must look at the practical facts on the ground. When we conduct this investigation, the implications of Bill C-395 become troubling on several levels. Let me discuss some of my concerns.

First, let us deal with the practical facts on the ground. In the history of law and legislation, we have seen that another old saying is also true, that often extreme cases make bad law. I recognize that this bill is intended to protect employees who are caught in a lengthy labour dispute that ends in a firm's closure. This result of course is regrettable and often difficult on the workers affected.

We should view this in context, however. Most labour disputes are relatively short and they rarely end in the closure of a firm. Between 2003 and 2009, for example, a little more than one per cent, only one per cent, of the total number of strikes ended in a firm's closure. Moreover, the average length of a strike that ended in a firm's closure was 110 days. For lockouts, the figure was 116 days. As the parliamentary secretary noted, these figures average out to 16 weeks. That leaves plenty of time for employees to qualify for benefits under the current 52-week requirement.

By these comments, I do not want to suggest that I am or our government is unsympathetic to the plight of the unemployed, far from it. Simply, we need to take account of the facts to inform our decision-making. Here are some of the facts.

The Employment Insurance Act does not preclude workers from accepting other employment during a labour dispute. The act allows employees to accumulate the work hours required to establish a claim for benefits. Specifically, through the variable entrance requirement, employees need between 420 and 700 insurable hours to qualify for regular benefits, depending upon the unemployment rate in the applicant's region.

In other words, using existing provisions of the act, employees in a labour dispute could qualify for benefits by building up their hours through work elsewhere. For this reason alone, the provisions in Bill C-395 are inadvisable.

Let us also recall that the employment insurance system is an insurance-based program. It is designed to provide benefits to workers if they are unable to work, whether because they are unemployed, sick, pregnant, caring for a newborn or adopted child, or caring for a gravely ill family member. This regime is supported by the premiums paid by both workers and employers.

When a worker meets the qualifying requirement, benefits kick in. It is that simple. The proposal before the House goes against the guiding principle that the EI program should remain neutral during a labour dispute.

My colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain pointed out correctly that allowing the provision of benefits to workers, paid for in part by employers, during a labour dispute would disrupt the system's balanced treatment, tilting the system in favour of workers in a situation where they are negotiating with management. This bill would make changes such that the negotiating position of unions and workers would be unfairly improved at the cost of employers, who pay 58% of employment insurance premiums. I simply do not think this change is something we should undertake.

There are other related aspects of this bill which I do not think are wise. Specifically, the bill proposes to change how the EI program calculates a qualifying period in the event of a labour dispute that leads to work stoppage. As members know, the qualifying period is the time in which a claimant must accumulate enough hours of insurable employment to establish a claim for benefits.

Currently it is generally the 52 weeks preceding the beginning of a claim. In some cases the period can be shorter when there was a prior claim. The bill would extend the qualifying period to be the same as the period of the labour dispute. This would allow employees to be eligible for employment insurance benefits if they are laid off after a lengthy labour dispute is resolved.

Existing provisions allow for the extension of a qualifying period to up to 104 weeks in certain situations. These exceptions include situations in which individuals are physically unable to work, such as quarantine and sickness. Labour disputes are not considered an exception, because individuals are not physically prevented from working. They could work somewhere else. The proposals in Bill C-395 would therefore deviate from the EI program's basic insurance principle, that there must be a reasonable proximity of timing and correlation of value between premiums paid and benefits disbursed.

These are the reasons I think this bill is not wise. I welcome the chance to speak a little bit about some actions that I do think are wise. Those are the actions of this Conservative government both recently and as part of Canada's economic action plan. Since coming to office and particularly since the beginning of the economic downturn, our government has acted decisively to support unemployed Canadians and help them get back to work, but we have done so based on sound evidence that the changes are in the best interests of all Canadians.

Through Canada's economic action plan, our government has introduced measures that support all unemployed Canadians. Specifically, we have temporarily extended the duration of EI benefits by five weeks. We have made it easier to take part in work-sharing agreements, which are helping to protect the jobs of almost 167,000 Canadians. We are also helping young people get certified in skilled trades, and helping long-tenured workers make the transition into new careers.

We have frozen the employment insurance premium rates for 2010 so they will be at the same rate as this year, which is the lowest level in a quarter of a century, and we are providing an additional $1.5 billion to the provinces and territories to help support skills training. Our government has also recently passed measures in Bill C-50 that will help long-tenured workers who lost their jobs because of the global recession. These measures will now start to help ensure that approximately 190,000 long-tenured workers who have paid into the EI system for years are provided between five and 20 extra weeks of EI while they search for new employment. Surely we can identify with likely one or two businesses in every riding throughout this House. This much-needed support is in addition to the five weeks of EI included in the economic action plan. This is an important step for Canadian workers who have worked hard, have paid taxes their whole lives and who find themselves in economic hardship.

Our government recognizes that the self-employed are an integral part of our economy. We believe that self-employed Canadians should not have to choose between their family and business responsibilities. That is why in 2008 our government committed to extending maternity and paternity benefits to the self-employed. On November 3, 2009 we introduced Bill C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, which provides all EI special benefits, including maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits to self-employed Canadians on a voluntary basis.

We have not just met our commitment to these 2.6 million Canadians, we have exceeded it. Bill C-56 has received a very positive response from a variety of stakeholders: the Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, the Canadian Real Estate Association. I could go on and on.

The government has acted responsibly to enhance the employment insurance program, particularly since the global economic slowdown. For all these reasons, I cannot support the proposed amendments, and I urge all members of the House to join me in my opposition to the bill.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I was once again interrupted on Friday by question period. The questions were excellent. However, given the government's answers, I have to say that we might have been better off listening to speeches about bills.

However, question period did give me an opportunity to hear the Minister of Public Works and Government Services say that the Bloc Québécois is always against everything. He was not listening right before question period. I had just said that the Bloc Québécois would support Bill C-51. We are completely in favour of this measure, the act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

I would like to summarize what I said during the first three minutes of my speech. I said that Bill C-51 would implement the renovation tax credit. That was one of the proposals in the recovery program that the Bloc Québécois released when Parliament resumed. Every party in the House but the Conservative government recognized that we were in the middle of an economic crisis.

During the 2008 election campaign, the Conservative Party denied the possibility that such an economic crisis would hit us here, even though our American neighbours—with whom we conduct a great deal of trade, of course—were in the midst of a major crisis, which unfortunately, is still not completely over.

Everyone knew that the whole world was facing an economic crisis and that Canada, Quebec and all the provinces would inevitably be affected. No one was happy about that. However, we needed to take off our rose coloured glasses and prepare for the worst, and also bring in concrete, effective measures to deal with and mitigate the effects of the crisis.

That is why the Bloc Québécois presented such a plan, which was, I might add, commended by the Minister of Finance. The minister said the Bloc Québécois was the only party in the House to bring forward concrete measures, and he thanked us for doing so. However, thanking us is as far as he went, given that, when he presented his budget, there was not much left of the important measures the Bloc had developed and proposed.

Bill C-51 also introduces a first-time homebuyers' tax credit. That is a good measure that was also proposed by the Bloc Québécois in our most recent election platform, during the election campaign that ended on October 14, 2008.

Bill C-51 implements Canada's international commitments to the International Monetary Fund, which were signed in 2008.

It also includes some other measures, such as the temporary home renovation tax credit, the first-time home buyers' tax credit and an increase in the tax relief provided by the working income tax benefit.

What I also liked about Bill C-51, since I am the Bloc Québécois critic for agriculture and agri-food, is that it will also extend the existing tax deferral available to farmers in prescribed drought regions to farmers who dispose of breeding livestock because of flood or excessive moisture, and it will designate the eligible flood or drought regions between 2007 and 2009.

We are not talking about a measure that will make all our farmers rich overnight, but this adjustment will prove very beneficial when a catastrophe hits our farmers. In addition, this bill amends the customs tariff to relax the conditions relating to temporarily imported shipping containers.

These are the main measures contained in Bill C-51.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance just now and at first reading of the bill and also when the home renovation tax credit was announced, touting this as the eighth wonder of the world and that the Canadian and Quebec economies would get back on track with this home renovation tax credit.

However, they should not exaggerate. I realize that this government tends to use every opportunity for the marketing and branding of the Conservative Party, with its logo and all the rest.

This measure alone will not put an end to the economic crisis and solve all the problems that have arisen in recent months and years. They should not exaggerate and consider it the be-all and end-all.

There a number of things missing from the government's deficit control plan and we can discuss these in the next few minutes.

The federal government's comprehensive plan to fight the recession is incomplete and poorly targeted. However, given that the measures in Bill C-51 are good for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois, in keeping with its responsible approach, will support this bill.

With respect to the home renovation tax credit in particular, as I was saying, in the first phase of our recovery plan, we had proposed introducing a similar home renovation tax credit. We emphasized the conversion of oil furnaces to more energy efficient equipment. We had a very specific plan for decreasing our dependence on oil.

This measure, in addition to helping reduce our dependence on oil would also have rapidly injected money into the economy. The measure we are debating today, the government's Bill C-51, does not specifically target energy efficient retrofits but is still an effective means of quickly stimulating the economy.

The government could have gone farther, as I said, and introduced a real environmental plan that would have stimulated the economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing our dependence on oil.

The first-time home buyers' tax credit is also interesting, because in our 2008 election platform, we had proposed a tax credit for first-time home buyers and called for such a program. The measure the government has introduced is not as generous as what we proposed, but we feel that it is a step in the right direction. That is why we also support this measure.

Buying a home is a big step for many families. It allows homeowners to build equity and benefit from the appreciated value of their home. Quebec is significantly behind the rest of Canada in this area. Many young families often have a hard time saving for a down payment to purchase their first home. In addition, since most people who are active in the workforce see their income increase over time, they often have to wait a while before they can purchase a property.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing that the government give interest-free loans of up to $10,000 for first-time home buyers. That would have been a very significant measure, although, as I said, the tax credit is clearly a step forward.

I spoke earlier about the last election campaign. I imagine that many of my colleagues in this House and many candidates in the last election had the opportunity to meet with real estate agents, because they demanded action on the issue of first-time home buyers. While I was campaigning, I had the chance to meet with people throughout Quebec, including people in my own riding. We talked to them and listened to their suggestions. This proposal that first-time home buyers receive interest-free loans of up to $10,000 was very well received by the people I met with. They felt it could be an efficient and effective way to help people buy their first home. Real estate agents were very much in favour of this measure.

If this measure were implemented, it would complement the tax credit proposed by the government in Bill C-51 and make it easier for people to purchase their first home. Then we would have a comprehensive home buyers' program.

In terms of the economic measures presented in the budget, some of which would be implemented by Bill C-51, a bill that would put the tax credits into effect, as I started out saying just after question period, the government denied that there was an economic crisis during the last election campaign. Conservative members unfortunately showed up empty handed for the economic statement last November, which sparked a crisis. I will not dwell on it, but we came very close at one point to having a coalition government, and to returning to the polls.

They finally presented some measures, even if they were not complete, as I was saying.

We did our homework. We presented a stimulus plan that had four objectives: tighten the social safety net and restore confidence to the public, which was experiencing—and still is—an economic crisis; stimulate employment and investment; support Quebec and the provinces; and stimulate strategic spending on things like measures to reduce oil dependency.

The OECD suggested that countries with the means to do so should provide income support for workers who lose their jobs. The best way to do that, of course, is through the employment insurance system. Economists agreed that one of the best ways to stimulate the economy was to help the least fortunate and in particular, to help those who, unfortunately, because of the economic crisis, lost their jobs. Needless to say, in the forestry sector, for example, people would have benefited from more extensive and flexible measures regarding employment insurance.

We suggested improving the employment insurance system by making it easier for people who lose their jobs to collect benefits. Our proposed changes would have enabled 148,000 more people to collect benefits every year. If we eliminate the waiting period, which is something the Bloc Québécois and other parties have been calling for for a long time, people will not have to wait 14 days for their cheques. We also suggested helping the most vulnerable with an investment of about $6 billion to help seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $110 per month. And we suggested helping middle-class families by doubling the GST credit for 2009.

We know that the government has put economic stimulus measures in place. A lot of money was invested to help Ontario's auto sector. We were never against helping that sector, but according to the statistics, it is clear that the government helped Ontario at the expense of Quebec and the other provinces, but especially at Quebec's expense because its forestry sector got nothing. At any rate, there is many a slip twixt cup and lip when it comes to what Ontarians got. As of now, 100% of the $9.7 billion—nearly $10 billion—in direct federal cash for the auto industry has been spent. About 80% of the $70 million allocation has been spent developing new markets for the forestry industry across Canada. There is still a huge difference between $10 billion in support for auto workers and $70 million for the forestry sector across Canada. Moreover, while 100% of the auto sector's money has been spent, 20% of the amount announced for the forestry sector has not yet been disbursed.

So, for its economic recovery plan, it would have been in the government's interest to listen to Quebec, the provinces, the opposition parties, unions, workers and the National Assembly of Quebec. They all made urgent requests to ensure that a real economic stimulus package would be introduced, particularly for the manufacturing and forestry sectors. The Quebec forestry industry employs over 88,000 workers and is an economic driving force in many regions of Quebec.

I was talking about employment insurance earlier. We heard some good news yesterday. Unfortunately, it does not have to do with the unemployment rate. There was some bad news on that, since it increased. The good news was that here in this House, a majority—except the Conservatives, unfortunately—voted in favour of Bill C-308 introduced by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. That bill will now go to committee. It includes several measures for a complete overhaul in the context of an economic stimulus plan. It would have been great if the government had supported those changes, which are more comprehensive than the piecemeal changes it wanted to make in several different bills.

The Bloc Québécois bill proposes improving access to the system and establishing a 360-hour threshold for everyone, which would make it easier for women and young people, who are often the most likely people to lose their jobs, as well as people with unstable jobs, to access benefits. In addition, Bill C-308 proposes a benefit rate increase from 55% of earnings to 60%.

It also recommends amendments that would give self-employed workers access on a voluntary basis to all employment insurance benefits, unlike the Conservatives' Bill C-56, which offers self-employed workers access to special benefits only. Our bill contains measures that are not only practical, but comprehensive and very effective in helping the unemployed. This is what the Conservative government could have done.

We have no problem supporting Bill C-51. It is hard to be against motherhood and apple pie, even if the pie is not all there. This bill provides one piece of the pie that will help us, namely, tax credits, including the home renovation tax credit. I cannot say that people are lining up at my three constituency offices to ask for information about these measures, but I would be lying if I said that I had not answered any questions from my constituents about this tax credit.

Obviously, we are pleased to provide them with information, and some people I know have begun to consider applying for this tax credit. That is why we are agreeing to promote this type of measure by voting in favour of Bill C-51.

Employment Insurance

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-50 does not meet the needs of Quebec's forestry workers. It was designed to help Ontario's auto workers. Similarly, Bill C-56 will not really help Quebec's self-employed workers, since they already have access to the Quebec parental insurance plan. Furthermore, the premiums required are too high compared to the benefits offered.

Does the government not see that this piecemeal reform of the employment insurance system is not working, and that a complete overhaul is needed?

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

Madam Speaker, there is no question this member raised a very technical point during her original question; however, today she speaks more generally.

As she may well know, we have Bill C-50 that would extend benefits by 5 to 20 weeks, which I understand has passed through the Senate and is receiving royal assent, or has. There is Bill C-56 for the self-employed, five extra weeks of benefits across the board, and work-sharing programs. Those are all significant improvements and there is the freezing of the EI rate.

Specifically to the question she raised and in dealing with the situation described especially in her original comments, HRSDC and Service Canada take many steps to help employers and Canadian workers. Whenever there is a threat of a company facing mass layoffs, Service Canada immediately moves in to work with the company, with the employees and with the union, if there is one, to try to reach an agreement that will help all of them get through difficult times.

It may be through work-sharing, a program we have enhanced for Canadians. It may be advising them of potential benefits, including the option for them to continue with long-term work studies so they can upgrade their skills. During this difficult time, the supplemental unemployment benefit program, or SUB as it is known, allows employers to provide top-up payments to claimants who are receiving EI benefits during a period of temporary unemployment, training or illness.

I should explain that one of the main objectives of the SUB program is to stabilize an employer's workforce. The reasoning is that workers will be more inclined to return to work when they are recalled. Moreover, if the claimants do return to their old workplace, they will be avoiding the need to go through the retraining process. So it is a win-win situation for everyone. The program is also designed to mitigate the adverse financial impacts that communities would suffer when massive temporary layoffs occur.

Please be assured that in the event of a temporary layoff, the payments under such plans are not deducted from the claimant's EI benefits nor are the payments during the waiting period. If the layoff is permanent, any employer payments to the claimant to top-up EI benefits would not be considered SUB payments.

The difference is that the workers will not be returning to work for that employer. In such a situation, the employers top-up payments to the EI benefits would be classified as earnings. As such, these earnings would be deducted from the EI benefits that were paid.

I should stress, however, that as a result of the working while on claim pilot project, claimants can earn up to 40% of their EI benefit rate before any deductions are made. This went into force December 2008. I would like to clarify that there is a short time during the mandatory two-week waiting period when there is no allowable amount of earnings. Any earnings during this period are deducted dollar for dollar.

This is the situation in the matter referred to by my colleague in her original question, and is somewhat technical in nature. As members can see, we are doing whatever possible whenever we can to ensure that the claimants do not endure unnecessary hardship. Where possible we try to work with them to make the situation better.

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question that I raised in the House on June 3 of this year with respect to employment insurance. It was about the fact that the Catalyst Crofton pulp mill was laying off workers and it was in the context of a lot of other forestry sector workers that were being impacted. Specifically, I indicated that there would be no severance package for Catalyst workers and, instead, the employer was negotiating a plan to top up EI benefits, as had been done in Sudbury. I asked the minister to explain whether these sub-plans would trigger clawbacks. It is ironic that I am now raising this question again in the House.

The answer I got from the minister did not indicate what the government would be doing about the clawbacks for these laid-off workers. Since that time things have not been a lot better in the forestry sector, at least in my riding and other parts of British Columbia.

I recently received a letter from the Catalyst - Timberwest Retired Salaried Employees Association indicating that not only did some of them lose their jobs through layoffs, but some of them ended up taking retirement and now their pensions are under threat. As well, they are not getting full entitlement to employment insurance. In its letter of October 26, the association indicated:

Currently both the underfunding of the pension plan and the non-pension benefits are considered unsecured debt, and has one of the lowest claims on funds.

In a letter of October 28, one of the workers said:

I am a retiree of a forestry company in British Columbia. The quarterly financial and economic reports of our Company indicate that it is in a survival mode in an industry that no one is predicting will turn around soon. I am very concerned that the company will seek CCAA or Bankruptcy protection while my pension fund is between 25% and 30% underfunded.

If this occurs, I anticipate losing 25 to 30% of my pension and all of my medical benefits earned while I was working.

I specifically raised the point around employment insurance, but what is becoming increasingly clear is not only do workers not get adequate employment insurance when they are in a temporary layoff, but when they are in receipt of company pensions that they expected would support them for their retirement years, they are also under threat in terms of the pension.

Given the circumstances that many workers in forestry and manufacturing in this country are facing with continuing lack of productivity in the workplace and the uncertainty surrounding economic recovery, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if the government is entertaining some additional changes to the employment insurance legislation.

We welcome some of the changes that we have seen come forward, certainly, the additional weeks in Bill C-50, and we welcome what is happening with Bill C-56 with respect to employment insurance for self-employed workers in particular categories, but that is simply not enough.

I want to point to some of the things that New Democrats have requested: a reduction in the number of hours that are required to qualify for employment insurance; an increase in the number of weeks; some standardization across this country in the number of weeks to qualify; and an increase in the benefit rate. We know that for many workers the current benefit rate simply does not reflect the cost of living and the reality in many people's communities.

When it comes to the unemployment rate, I have mentioned a number of times in this House that we have had no movement from the government to change it, but the differential rates in calculating benefit rates simply disadvantage communities like mine.

Is the government entertaining future changes to the Employment Insurance Act that would reflect the needs in our communities?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have had the opportunity to listen to my colleague's intervention in this debate on Bill C-56 around special EI benefits for the self-employed. One of the things that I found most interesting about her speech was her comments about how this legislation particularly affects women.

We know that women are heavily represented among Canada's 2.6 million self-employed citizens, and that the benefits that are offered by this legislation are often of particular interest to women, certainly the ones regarding maternity benefits and compassionate care benefits. Although we would hope that everybody would share those kinds of responsibilities, we know that women often bear the burden of those kinds of familial responsibilities.

This legislation will directly address the concerns of many self-employed women in Canada and I wonder if she might just expand on that point a little in response to this question. How will this legislation particularly affect Canadian women?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I waited patiently to participate in this debate on Bill C-56 at second reading. I had, in my mind, planned to talk about certain things, but following the debate, I am going to start off by going in a different direction and then I hopefully will have enough time to make the points I wanted to make about the merits or the demerits of the bill.

We are elected to come to this House with the intent of trying to bring forth legislation. Ideas and suggestions are tabled here and in committee to improve the lives of our people in good times and in difficult times. Our country today is going through some difficult times. There is high unemployment, and the economy is hitting rock bottom.

We eliminated the $42 billion deficit. We provided $100 billion in tax relief, the highest in Canadian history. Unemployment went from 11.3% or 11.4% in 1993 to 6.1% or 6.2% when we left government in 2006. People were working. There was confidence in the nation.

I want to go back to a couple of questions that were asked of the previous speaker, who is from the Conservative Party, the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park. He was asked one question by two members of the Liberal team: first by our whip, the member for Cape Breton—Canso; and the same question again by the member for Mississauga South.

One might ask why two Liberal members would ask the same question.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56 is great news for self-employed workers. It was utterly unfair that, in the past, only those who worked for other people's organizations have been able to collect employment insurance and parental benefits, while putting in an equal amount of work and paying taxes.

It is vitally important that all Canadians are able to find a balance between work and family. Extending maternity, parental, and compassionate care benefits to self-employed Canadians will mean that they will be better able to care for their families.

Perhaps the member could comment on how self-employed workers across this country would be allowed access to these benefits just like other Canadians.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.