Bill C-241 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period)

This enactment removes the waiting period that precedes the commencement of benefits after an interruption of earnings and repeals provisions that refer to that waiting period.

Employment Insurance Act

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

moved that Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that this bill must be accepted by the current Conservative government. I begin my remarks with that comment because we have been talking about this for a long time. The two-week waiting period is a critical issue. This is not a minor bill designed to keep senators in the red chamber for a longer or shorter period of time. It is an act that can help all workers who lose their job.

That injustice has been around for too long. I am going to give some numbers. In 1989, 83% of Canadians and Quebeckers were eligible for employment insurance. Now, it is less than 50%.

What did the government do? It passed a law to add five additional weeks at the end of the benefit period. And how many people benefit from this initiative? Currently, it applies to 28% of those who are eligible for EI benefits. However, 28% of 50% does not make for a large number of people. The fact is that few workers are entitled to these five additional weeks.

If the two-week waiting period was waived, all workers who lose their job would benefit. I am not talking about workers who resign or who lose their job because they failed to perform, but about workers who are laid off because their plant shut down, because there are fewer orders in the books, because the plant is relocated, or because of a bankruptcy. These people are laid off through no fault of their own. They are the most affected by these two weeks without benefits.

Waiving the two-week waiting period would have a much greater impact on financial security than the five additional weeks at the end of the benefit period. Indeed, this situation affects the most vulnerable workers in our society. The two-week waiting period is a glaring injustice: these people lose their job through no fault of their own, yet they are penalized. It seems as if the Conservative government likes to punish workers who get laid off. I just cannot understand that.

In Quebec, this situation puts pressure on the Quebec government when these people turn to social assistance. Social costs increase, even though the federal government is responsible for looking after those people who lose their job through no fault of their own.

There is an urgent need for action, but the government does not seem to understand that, and it would appear that the Conservatives are not going to let us get this bill passed. Abolishing the two-week waiting period would not mean extending the employment insurance benefit period. All it would do is allow people to receive their EI benefits two weeks earlier, so that they would not have to go without money for two weeks.

Often, people do not even know they are going to lose their jobs. They get a warning and lose their jobs the same week, because the employer did not want anyone to know in advance. What is more, most of the time, these people do not have any money set aside. They even have debts. Liberalism encouraged people to go into debt in an excess of consumerism.

These people are just like everyone else. Workers also have a culture of borrowing. Then, suddenly, they have no money coming in for two weeks, so they go deeper into debt and they cannot afford to pay the mortgage or rent or feed their families. It is that serious.

If the waiting period were eliminated and the five weeks at the end left intact, the cost to the EI system would not be much more. In any case, only 28% of people receive the five weeks of benefits at the end of the period. Presumably, everyone would receive the two weeks at the start.

These two weeks are a question of dignity for our workers. It is scandalous that people who lose their jobs cannot get help from employment insurance right away.

Does the government want to punish workers for losing their jobs? We have to wonder. We could even say that that is what the government is trying to do. It is trying to punish workers for losing their jobs through no fault of their own. They will have to spend two weeks without benefits.

Generally speaking, the government is not criticized very much. It thinks that, as with every type of insurance, a premium must be paid. However, employment insurance is not a public or private insurance. It is a social measure that should apply to everyone, and people should not be punished unfairly.

Unfortunately, this unfair punishment has been around since 1971, and it is high time to abolish it. The current government should realize that it will not be defeated tomorrow if it eliminates this injustice. On the contrary, we will appreciate it more.

This measure is supported by all Quebeckers and Canadians. Unions, community groups, women's groups, anti-poverty groups, food banks, retailers, all support this measure, except the people that the government consulted. These people include business leaders, economists, banks and probably some hand-picked professors, who are at the source of this neo-liberal ideology.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this bill is necessary. It should be looked on favourably by the government, and I am asking it to reconsider its position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member is of the view that the two-week waiting period should be eliminated. Of course, it would have a cost.

If the member is really concerned about helping those who are vulnerable, those who are unemployed, why is it that he voted against the extension of the EI program, the addition of five weeks for those who were unemployed? Why is it that he voted against the extra weeks of benefits for long-tenured workers? Why is it that he voted against the program that allowed people to maintain their jobs, the work-sharing program that helped thousands and thousands of people? Why is it he voted against that?

Indeed, I am not sure what the Bloc members would have against older workers, but when there was a special provision for older workers, they voted against that too.

Those are millions of dollars of expenditures including millions of dollars to help people upgrade their skills to be able to find new jobs. How in good conscience could the Bloc members have voted against all of that and be fixated on one particular issue of the EI program?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing the propaganda from the member opposite to the effect that we voted against certain things. But does he tell us in which document the government hid that measure? We agreed with the five additional weeks, but the government included that measure in a budget that we could not support. The member does not mention that, even though he is well aware that it is the case. He knows full well that we supported the idea of providing five additional weeks. We did not vote against those five weeks: we voted against the rest of the budget. You know that. You are almost being dishonest when you say that to the House. You know why we voted—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I must remind the hon. member to address his remarks to the Chair, not directly to other members.

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a difference between what the member was talking about with respect to the bill and what the parliamentary secretary was talking about. The Conservatives are not telling people the whole truth when they talk about extending benefits. When the time came for the government to provide 20 additional weeks, seasonal workers got nothing. According to the government, they did not deserve extra benefits. The government does not consider them to be long-tenured workers. I will never forget what the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism said:

“We will give it to those who really deserve it”.

Shame on her for saying that. There is a big difference between what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources was trying to say earlier and the truth. The truth is that they did not want seasonal workers to benefit from additional weeks of employment insurance.

I would like my colleague to respond to that. I also wonder whether the parliamentary secretary will continue to question the way we vote in the House.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his extremely interesting question. We have never been against the five weeks. In fact, we should add even more. Five weeks is not a lot.

The waiting period is hard on the unemployed. The government does not want to eliminate it. It will not agree to this because, as my colleague said, seasonal workers would have immediate help. Consequently, the government does not want to do that, even though we feel it would be fair and reasonable. I do not know what kind of morals they have, but we believe that, morally, it is fair and reasonable that workers who lose their jobs, seasonal workers or otherwise, can have their two weeks as usual and not go hungry just when they need immediate help.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know those hon. members have a difficult time accepting the truth, but the fact is the items I outlined appeared before the House. Some appeared in the budget, as they said, but some appeared individually. The long-tenured workers and the extension for them appeared in its own bill. When we talked about benefits to the self-employed, it appeared in its own bill. They had a choice to stand up for it or against it and they had to make that decision.

I will highlight the many actions our Conservative government has taken over the past year and a half to help Canadians who were unemployed during the recent economic downturn. It is important to highlight these measures, especially when we are debating opposition attempts to shoehorn their pet projects into systems that, by and large, are working well for Canadians and that they have chosen, for one reason or another, not to support.

It is important to highlight what our government is doing for Canadians. The party proposing the bill voted against the economic action plan that we crafted to help Canadians. There is no question about that. It is also especially important to do this when the actions this Conservative government have taken have been so thorough.

The bill is not consistent with our government's approach. It is—

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I rise on a point of order. I would like the member to have the courage to talk about Bill C-241 and not about what else they are doing. He should be talking about the bill, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member would like the hon. parliamentary secretary to talk about Bill C-241. Because it is third reading, the rules on relevance are very strict. The House would appreciate it if the hon. parliamentary secretary would speak about the bill in question.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course it is relevant and I think there are some issues that the member can learn. The issue he raises affects unemployed Canadians. The issue he raises is a narrow one that is shoehorned into a bigger picture.

We are talking about the unemployed. We need to know the full picture, how this fits in the context and whether people should oppose it or not. I am saying this bill is not a good bill when put in the context of what is happening everywhere.

Let us go back to December of 2008, more than a year ago, during the first difficult months of the global economic recession.

On December 18, 2008, CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live, someone we all know quite well, welcomed Mr. David Dodge, the former governor of the Bank of Canada. He was asked whether eliminating the two-week waiting period for EI was an expenditure worth making. It was a very specific question, which deals exactly with this bill. He was asked whether it would be effective, whether the expenditure was worth making. Mr. Dodge responded unequivocally and without hesitation. He said:

The answer is no. That would probably be the worst waste of money we could make...because there's a lot of churn in the labour market.

His message was that this was understandable and that it was prudent to retain the waiting period, simply from an operational and a practical standpoint. He said, “that two weeks is there for a very good reason”. Mr. Dodge went on to say, “the real issue is that some of these people are going to be off work for a rather long period of time”.

We are focused on what matters to Canadians, creating and preserving jobs, investing in training and helping those hardest hit. How did we know this? Because we asked and Canadians told us.

Our government engaged in the most comprehensive prebudget consultations in Canadian history, leading up to the release of Canada's economic action plan in budget 2009. During those consultations with Canadians, and the member would do well to listen, they told us they wanted EI to be extended to help unemployed Canadians who were having difficulty finding a new jobs or who needed more comprehensive skills upgrading. That is what Canadians told us. That is also what experts like David Dodge told us. That is what we did.

Through the economic action plan, we provided an additional five weeks of EI benefits to all Canadians who needed them, to help them get through the tough economic times. Over 500,000 Canadians have benefited from that measure alone. I wonder what the member would say to those 500,000 Canadians, whom he did not stand and support in the action that was taken by the government.

However, we were not finished. We kept a sharp eye on the situation and we acted again when the need presented itself. This past fall, we introduced and passed Bill C-50, a stand-alone bill, acting further to ensure that the EI program remained responsive to the needs of Canadians. That bill provided fairness for Canadian long-tenured workers. There are Canadians who have worked for many years, who have paid EI premiums for many years and who have rarely, if ever, used the system at all.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order. The member is starting up again. He is not speaking on topic. He should be talking about Bill C-241 and not another bill that has already been passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I know the hon. parliamentary secretary is discussing other aspects of EI and changes that have been done. However, with respect to third reading, the practice of the House is that remarks are supposed to be constrained, not in terms of generalities or other peripheral issues, but specific quite strictly to the bill itself.

If the member likes, I can read that part of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , but the members have asked him to speak to the bill at hand and I think the House would appreciate it if he did so.

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

Mr. Speaker, some members appreciate, and to put this in appropriate context, that if one has to look at this bill, one has to look at it in context. It is taking one aspect of the employment insurance program and saying that this is what we need to do to make employment insurance better.

That is a simplistic point of view. We cannot cherry-pick one item and say we want the House to support that one item, when the fact is that they have not supported other items that benefited more people.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am going to ask you to read the Standing Orders to the parliamentary secretary, because he is doing what the Conservatives often do, which is to bend the rules of the House to send messages that are false and that do not respect the rules of this place.

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi is absolutely right on this point. I am asking that the member opposite deal strictly with Bill C-241. We have done that, and we are going to continue to do so.

For once, could he comply with the rules of this House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am saying when one looks at the bill in the context of what the Bloc is trying to do, it is a shoehorn or cherry-picking approach that is not acceptable.

This bill is exactly what we do not need to do. It is unwise for the EI program. It results in an inefficient and very costly program change. It is unwarranted in the economic circumstances. It is unnecessary in significant new spending. The department in charge estimates that the bill would cost approximately $1.3 billion per year. That would result in either a deficit or higher premiums, something those members should not be supporting—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that the parliamentary secretary continues to talk about all sorts of things, but not about my colleague's bill.

While a bill can be very thorough, a member always has the opportunity to improve it and to take it to another stage.

In all due respect for my colleague's bill, the parliamentary secretary should only talk about this legislation and stop raising other issues. He should stop saying that the act already does this and that, and he should stop proposing improvements that have already been made. We have to see how the bill can be improved.

That is what my colleague is trying to say, but the parliamentary secretary refuses to hear anything.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for you to make it clear. If the parliamentary secretary does not have the right speech with him, then he should get another one to make sure he is dealing with the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary only has one minute left to conclude his remarks. For the benefit of the House, I am going to read an excerpt from page 626 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, regarding the issue of relevance at third reading.

Debate on third reading is intended to permit the House to review the legislative measure in its final form and is therefore strictly limited to the contents of the bill.

There is one minute remaining for the hon. parliamentary secretary. I know some of his remarks are leading him to the subject of the bill and I trust in that minute, he will address the contents of the bill and we will move on to the next speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been addressing the contents of the bill. I do not know where the members were. I do not know what they have listened to, but I have been pretty clear that the bill is exactly what we do not need. What do they find so hard to understand about that?

The bill is unwise for the EI program. It is inefficient, very costly, unwarranted and unnecessary. When we look at the cost, it will be $1.3 billion per year as a result of the bill, which will have unacceptable consequences. The bill is exactly the kind of reckless spending proposal that is harmful to our country's fiscal and economic health, but which the opposition is all too fond of these days. This will not help us in that regard.

The bill is expensive and contrary to the good work that we have already done. A number of economists have said that removing this two-week waiting period is not the right way to go. They say that it is there for a reason, it makes the system efficient and there are other ways to spend the money. Members need to understand that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I should point out that if the member is addressing whether the bill is worthy of support, that is in order. If the member is talking about the consequences of the bill, that is in order as well. The members were pointing to other parts of his speech, but I appreciate the hon. parliamentary secretary for coming back to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-241. I want to congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for bringing the bill this far. We did discuss this before Parliament was prorogued and it was passed at committee. I am hoping this time it will not be such a close vote in order to get it to committee where the member for Chambly—Borduas and I, and others can have a look at it.

There has been a lot of activity, advocacy in particular, on the employment insurance issue over the last little while. Employment insurance at a time of an economic downturn is a particularly important piece of our social infrastructure. The idea of the two-week waiting period has been discussed quite a bit. My colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche has talked about this a lot within our Atlantic and our national caucus. This affects people in his riding in a very significant way.

The idea of even calling it a two-week waiting period is not correct. It really should be called a two-week “out of luck period”, or a two-week “too bad for you period”, or a two-week “no money for the family period”. That may sound funny, but it is a fact of life that many people lose their jobs. Unlike many Canadians, we sit in a very privileged place, do a wonderful job, and members of Parliament work hard, but we are well treated for that work.

Most Canadians really do not live much more than paycheque-to-paycheque. To lose a paycheque all of a sudden and be told at the very least they have to wait two weeks on top of the processing time, which lagged in late 2008 and early 2009, is most unfortunate. So this is a very important piece of our social infrastructure. When people need the money, they need it right away.

There are a number of ways we can improve EI. We have gone through these in the House before. An increase of the benefit percentage is another way of improving EI. We could increase the number of weeks. The government added some weeks in the last budget and then further in the fall added a specific group of people. We could look at what percentage of income people can make while they are on EI. There is a whole host of ways of looking at the difference between re-entrance and regular users of EI, so this is one period that is particularly important.

It is important to understand that there will be a cost. It is hard to identify the cost specifically, but the Library of Parliament indicates that there are three ways that the bill would increase costs. First, periods of unemployment lasting two weeks or less would then become insured. Second, extending the duration of the benefits of some people who find a job before their maximum period ends would impact on this. Third, it would increase costs because benefit deductions are calculated differently during the waiting period than during the other weeks of unemployment. So there is a cost, but we do not know what it is.

HRSDC has given us some different costs. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives supports the elimination of the two-week waiting period. It has suggested a costing of $765 million. We had a cost that was provided by TD Economics which suggested it might be $1 billion. I do not know exactly what the cost is, but the question for us is, is that cost worth it and more importantly, do we need to send a message to the government that at a time of economic difficulty was its response last year enough?

I clearly do not think it was. I want to quote from this year's alternative budget on employment insurance. It states:

The economic crisis, the first since major cuts were made to our EI program in the mid-1990s, has been an extreme “stress test” for Canada’s EI program. The program has failed and needs to be fixed.

There is no question that changes were made to our EI system starting in 1990 when Prime Minister Mulroney made the first changes to EI. That was the point in time in which the government no longer became one of the contributors to the fund. It was then left to employers and employees, and further cuts came later. We were in a time of economic distress where the needs were much different than they were at this economic downturn. Back then the issue was getting rid of the debt. This time the issue was making sure--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources on a point of order.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the Bloc members have not risen several times already in the middle of the member's speech because certainly he has drifted much further away from the content of the bill than the parliamentary secretary ever did. I thought the Bloc members, in all their moralistic approach to this before, would have been up on their feet. I am glad to see that a couple of them are finally getting to their feet. Perhaps they were not listening, but hopefully they will ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bring the member back to the content of the bill as you reminded us he has to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel concerned by this reminder. Mr. Speaker, the reason I did not rise is that, like you, I saw the relevance of putting the waiting period into the context in which it was set, along with other measures that were also implemented.

In fact, I want to congratulate the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for the relevance of his comments on Bill C-241.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Perhaps I will just say that the rules regarding relevance at third reading are stricter than the rules at second reading. That being said, it is normal, in my time here, that MPs, from time to time, give a little bit of background.

As was mentioned to the hon. parliamentary secretary, at third reading those departures from the actual subject of the bill are to be a lot fewer and remarks should be very closely constrained to the actual contents of the bill that is before the House.

I will make that observation to the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and ask him to keep his remarks, as strictly as possible, constrained to the contents of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have done that and will continue to do that. I thank my two colleagues for their interventions. I found the latter one much more relevant and sensible.

We are talking about EI and how we fix EI. That is why we are looking at this two-week waiting period issue that members in our caucus, including the members for Madawaska—Restigouche, Beauséjour, Cape Breton—Canso, have talked about for a long time.

There is a view on the government side, as has been said directly by the minister herself, that EI was too generous. We heard that. My colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche mentioned in the fall how members of the government side started to pick and choose who should get the extra weeks based on who deserved it more, which is an affront to people who need EI and are unable to get any particular benefit from the government.

If this is indeed the case, what is Canada doing versus other countries? If, as the government believes, we are way too generous in our EI system, let us look at this waiting period of two weeks. Canada has a two-week waiting period; Denmark has no waiting period; Finland has seven days; France has eight days; Germany has no waiting period; and Sweden has five days. That is what some of our contemporary comparators are doing.

On benefit duration right now, it is 14-45 weeks in Canada before the extension. In Denmark benefits may last for up to 4 years; in Finland, it is 500 days; in Germany, it is 6-18 months; and in Sweden is 300 days with a possibility of an extra 150 days.

When we talk about social infrastructure, we cannot look at EI and say it is too generous. The minister has said it, but she is wrong. She tells us a lot about how she runs her department, and how the government looks at EI when it thinks it is too generous and does not want to risk making it even more generous.

Other countries that we should compare ourselves to are doing a whole lot more. If we look at and say that our social infrastructure is way better than the United States, it turns out that Obama had led the charge on EI to extend way beyond 5 weeks or even 15 weeks. In the United States the federal government actually took a leadership role on employment insurance and said this is where we need to go.

At the very beginning of this debate we need to understand that we do many things right in Canada, but we are not the leaders on things like employment insurance, just like we are not the leaders on issues of disability. I congratulate the government on finally ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but we have a lot of work to do.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for getting the bill here. I hope that we have a less close vote. I hope we do not have to rely on the common sense of the Speaker to send this back to our committee where we can have a look at it.

Employment insurance is a critical piece of our social infrastructure. It has evolved over the years and we can all argue about the reasons. We can all look at it and say that this should not have been done, that should not have been done. We have done that in committee and we have done that in this House, and we have done that outside of this House.

The point is that when employment insurance was most needed, when the country was in a tailspin, when manufacturing was going down, when provinces simply could not keep up with the social assistance payments because people were being offloaded from things like EI, when we needed help, when we talked about stimulus, the government did not respond in the way it should have. It just did not come close.

Employment insurance is as good a form of stimulus as is possible because people need it and they spend it. This bill is well worthy of consideration. I intend to vote for it and I hope all members of the House do likewise.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join in the debate on an issue that means quite a bit to not only those I represent in Sudbury but Canadians across the country, Bill C-241.

If passed, the bill would put in place something the New Democrats have been calling for, for quite some time: an end to the two-week waiting period before an EI claimant can receive employment insurance benefits.

Let me first discuss why the bill is so important, not just to my riding but Canadians across Canada. As I stated, the bill is important to all Canadians who will be forced to apply for employment insurance, an action that is much too common these days. When workers lose their jobs or are laid off, the absolute last thing they need is a gap in their income.

When Canadians lose their jobs, not only is their usual source of income gone, but also their personal work relationships, daily structures and sense of self-purpose. Unemployment can be, and often is, a shock to the whole system. People can experience some of the same feelings and stresses that one would feel when they were seriously injured, going through a divorce, or mourning the loss of a loved one.

Dealing with the devastating news of losing one's job should not be worsened with a break in income. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens. Canadians who have lost their jobs, and in many cases their self-worth, must then wait two weeks before they are eligible to receive a stipend from employment insurance, the same insurance they paid into in good faith for the term of their employment.

The waiting period is an unnecessary hardship. Out of work Canadians do not need more adversity when they have just been dealt one of the biggest hardships they will ever experience in their lifetime.

Let me illustrate this point with a local example from my constituency of Sudbury. My riding of Sudbury is familiar with hardship. My community has endured a great deal in the past year. About a year and a half ago, Xstrata laid off 686 workers, months before the three year agreement the government signed under the Investment Canada Act expired. Xstrata is also closing down its copper refinery in Timmins. For its part, Vale Inco laid off over 400 workers. Those who were not laid off, well over 3,000 workers, are about to enter into the 11th month of their strike.

These layoffs and the ongoing strike are also affecting the mining supply and services sector, meaning that 17,000 employees in Sudbury have gone from about 40 hours a week to about 20 hours a week.

The families in my community have endured enough hardship: layoffs, a strike. If we had the ability to do away with one hardship, it would be the two-week waiting period before one qualifies for EI benefits. It would go a long way toward helping these families stay on track.

Thus far, the Conservative government has not been interested in any measures that would help Canadians through these tough times. In fact, the Conservative government has repeatedly let down northern Ontario. This past year, when multinational mining giants Vale Inco and Xstrata violated their agreements with the Canadian government under the Investment Canada Act, the government did nothing. When these companies threw hundreds of workers out on the street contrary to the agreement they signed with the government, the Conservatives failed to act.

Now, as we debate the bill, a bill that would bring immediate relief to those Canadians who are at the front lines of this economic crisis, the government is once again leaving workers and families to fend for themselves. In fact, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development revealed her contempt for the unemployed by stating that EI is too lucrative.

Comments like these are not only downright shameful, but also a window into how the government views the unemployed. I invite the minister and any other member of the Conservative caucus to come to Sudbury and meet some of the people I have: fathers who are worried about their mortgage payments and how they are going to be able to keep up, and single mothers who are resorting to food banks to feed their children. The list can be endless.

The government will argue that it has done enough, more than enough, by tacking on a few weeks of EI. Let us set the record straight. The Conservatives think that if they add five weeks at the end, by that time it is their hope that these people will have found a job. As such, it is their hope that these workers will never benefit from these additional five weeks. What it truly comes down to, for the Conservatives, is that those extra five weeks will be of no cost to the government.

The government seems to have all kinds of money for tax breaks for corporations, except when it comes to the unemployed. This is just plain unacceptable. What makes the government's approach even more inexplicable is the fact that unemployment insurance makes monetary--

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to disturb the Speaker but the member has strayed for a considerable period of time from the essence of the bill.

We seem to have two standards here. It would seem that the member should be brought to the place where he somehow connects the bill to what he is saying. He has ventured off to talk about a whole number of things that are not specific to the bill and perhaps should be cautioned as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I think we are all getting an education in the rules of relevance at third reading.

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas raises a point of order in the same regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, I do not think he really understood what the hon. member for Sudbury was saying. The hon. member correctly gave the example of Vale Inco in regard to the waiting period. He was giving specific examples of people who were unable to take advantage of the two-week period. That is what he was talking about.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Sudbury has about three minutes left in his speech. As I have reminded two other members this evening, the rules at third reading do call for more strict attention to relevance to the actual contents of the bill. With his remaining time, I think the House would appreciate it if he kept that in mind.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was very clear that I was speaking to this bill because this bill is about actually helping unemployed Canadians and I was talking about how the Conservatives are choosing not to help unemployed Canadians. So that is very relevant. I will continue on with my statement.

It is true that unemployment insurance is by far the best short-term economic stimulus available to the government. This way, EI has the single best multiplier effect out of the stimulus tools available to the government. It has a multipler of $1.64 for every $1 the government spends on it. Therefore, basically, when people receive EI sooner rather than waiting for that two-week period, they are not the ones who will be taking big vacations. They are out there spending money in their communities, hence, the economic stimulus is even greater. Employment insurance, bar none, has the best bang for the buck.

What is more, we are not the only ones calling for these changes. This bill has a great deal of support with communities and organizations across Canada. Among them is the Bloc, of course, which recognizes, like we do, that the two-week waiting period for employment insurance should be eliminated. We also have the Canadian Labour Congress, le Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec. le Confédération des syndicats nationaux and le Centrale des syndicats du Québec. Those whose lives would be changed the most with these changes, unemployed workers themselves, are also asking for these changes.

Those groups see the benefit in keeping our unemployed workers in their communities, allowing stores to stay open and rent and mortgages to be paid. They see the real difference a few weeks of EI benefits can make in earlier access and so do we. That is why our party will support the bill when it comes to a vote and why I hope the government will recognize the need for this measure and support it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for introducing Bill C-241 and framing his arguments so well in regard to its main purpose.

Our colleague from Sudbury was exactly right. He showed very well what this measure is good for when people lose their jobs. He gave the example of the employees at Vale Inco, who have been in a labour dispute for a number of months now. Previously, there were job losses that had a domino effect on companies in Sudbury and caused further layoffs. Often these people do not earn big salaries, especially those working in retail. They were deprived from the outset of two weeks income. My colleague from Brome—Missisquoi did a good job of describing the impact of such an income loss.

These families still have financial obligations at month’s end, but they have two weeks less income. People who lose their jobs do not have any time to make financial adjustments. They have to start looking for a job and do not receive an income right away.

It is incredible to hear what our Conservative friends have to say about this. The parliamentary secretary quoted David Dodge, who was the long-time governor of the Bank of Canada and earned between $1.5 and $3 million. I do not know how many millions he got when he left his position and received a huge separation allowance.

He went so far as to say that giving employment insurance benefits to people who have contributed to the system—it is their money—could well push Canada into bankruptcy. It is incredible to hear such things. There are shows like Just for Laughs where people imitate what happens in the House of Commons and say things like that. It makes me laugh, but they could make similar arguments. They quote rich people to say how little the poor deserve what belongs to them. But this is their insurance, to which they contributed the whole time they were working.

They say that the government cannot pay for it. Well it is not the government paying, because only employees and employers pay into employment insurance. The benefits are paid with that money. They also say that the fund will go into deficit, but that is not true.

My colleague the parliamentary secretary, talking about the budget, acknowledged that $57 billion in surplus over the last 14 years was taken from the fund and used for other purposes. Over the next three years, from 2012 to 2015, an additional $19 billion in surplus will also be used for other purposes. They tell workers who lose their jobs they are going to bankrupt Canada. It is wrong to mock people like that. That money belongs to the workers.

Yesterday, in committee, a witness was asked whether workers are going to agree to having their premiums raised. They do not have anything to say about it, because the government has already decided it will increase premiums by 15¢ per $100 in earnings each year for the next five years. There is a $19 billion surplus. Are workers going to agree to that increase? They have no choice because it has already been decided.

Is there enough money to pay for it? Of course, it is being used for something else. This is a serious economic crime, committed against workers who lose their jobs, against their families, against the regions and provinces affected. Those people find themselves with no income, and it is the province in question that has to cover the cost. It is the Quebec nation that covers the cost, even though there is money in the bank.

It has to be said. The issue has to be debated in its proper context.

The waiting period was set nearly 39 years ago, as my colleague said. It was set because there were jobs at that time. Employers could not find workers. There was a lot of work and you could change jobs virtually every week if you wanted.

They decided they were going to punish people who did not want to work by imposing a two-week penalty on them. That was the reason at the time. It no longer exists. When people who have the misfortune to lose their jobs do not find a job overnight in their region, it is because there are no jobs. That is the reason why.

That measure has become antiquated and regressive over time. It applies to a situation that existed 39 years ago but no longer exists. Let us get to 2010, and let the government join us in voting for this bill. To do that, let it stop invoking the royal recommendation. That is a ploy to fool people. This bill is not asking that charges be made on the consolidated revenue fund. It does not cost a penny. The yes-people on the other side, particularly from Quebec, are not standing up for the people in their ridings. Let them show some backbone for once in their lives. The member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean admitted it himself today. He said he was proud of the token role he was being asked to play. So let him stop—

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite was one of the people who wanted other speakers to be relevant here but he has insisted on launching ridiculous personal attacks on members of Parliament on this side of the House who have been doing tremendous work for the people of Quebec, while he in turn would divide the country rather than bring it together.

I think the member should probably get back to discussing the bill and, if not, perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, could read the standing orders to him, which he wanted to hear so much earlier.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I do not think that will be necessary because we have come to the point of debate where I must stop the hon. member and return to the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

I must interrupt the debate because the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has a five-minute right of reply.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that only five minutes remain for a bill that is so important for workers throughout Canada and Quebec.

When the government, through the parliamentary secretary, said that people will not accept the truth, what truth was it talking about? Was it talking about its own ideological truth that fails to help workers? Eliminating the two-week waiting period has nothing to do with ideology; it has to do with necessity and need.

I very much appreciated the fact that my colleague spoke up and pointed out that David Dodge is not someone who needs money. What does David Dodge have to do with it? No one asked the unions; no one asked the food banks. Instead, they asked David Dodge.

The Conservatives are saying they conducted prebudget consultations. Who did they consult? The minister told us: they consulted heads of banks. They did not conduct any prebudget consultations with grocery store owners or the people who would receive that money.

If we were to eliminate the two-week waiting period, people would not be saving that money for a rainy day. That money would return to the economy immediately because those people need it. That money would generate GST and other taxes.

The parliamentary secretary is saying that this measure would cost $1.3 billion. He increased his estimate, since last time he said it would cost $1 billion and now he is talking about $1.3 billion. We better hurry up and vote on this bill, or soon he will put the cost at $1.6 billion.

Our researchers old us that it could cost nearly $900 million. But most of that money will come back to the government.

He says that this is inefficient. Inefficient compared to what? We think it is efficient for workers. It may not be good for their reputation. He says that this is unnecessary spending. What does he know? Has he ever been unemployed? To say that this is unnecessary spending is an insult to people who lose their jobs. These people need this money. As my colleague said, they are the ones who paid into the program, not the government.

We cannot really expect the Conservatives to change their ideology, because there will be no royal recommendation for this bill. But as my colleague said, this money does not come out of the government's budget. I want to say that again, because it is important. It is important for the unions to hear and for the workers to hear. We will refuse the royal recommendation for this bill if the government should ever decide to grant it, because it should not apply. I believe that the government should listen to us and not apply the royal recommendation.

I therefore call on all parliamentarians to do the right thing and be sensitive to workers who fall victim to the neo-liberal crisis and globalization. That is why plants are closing without notice. We must correct this injustice.

The Conservatives are saying that this measure will not fix everything. We know that. We want to put forward a whole slew of measures to make employment insurance more equitable, and I used the word equitable deliberately. This measure may be modest, but it is very important to workers who lose their jobs without notice. This is something very real we are asking for.

The Conservatives still have time to think about this and admit that they had not realized how much workers across Canada needed this, even workers in Alberta who sometimes lose their jobs. They had not realized why people lose their jobs or how great their need was. I hope the Conservatives will come to this realization tonight and agree with us tomorrow morning.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for the debate has expired.

It is my duty to inform hon. members that the requirements for printing royal recommendation in accordance with Standing Order 79(2) have not been met. The question on the motion for third reading of the bill will therefore not be put.

Accordingly, the order for third reading is discharged and the item is dropped from the order paper.

(Order discharged and item dropped from order paper)