Bill C-280 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits)

This enactment
(a) by lowering the threshold for becoming a major attachment claimant to 360 hours, makes special benefits available to those with that level of insurable employment;
(b) sets the weekly benefit payable to 55% of the average weekly insurable earnings during the highest-paid 12 weeks in the 12-month period preceding the interruption of earnings; and
(c) reduces the qualifying period before receiving benefits and removes the distinctions made in the qualifying period on the basis of the regional unemployment rate.

Employment Insurance Act

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

moved that Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here today and deliver a piece of legislation in my name that will have a great effect on the lives of hard-working Canadians who have, through no fault of their own, found themselves unemployed. It is people like them who define some of the most difficult challenges we are facing in Canada given the current difficult economic times.

My bill attempts to set right parts of Canada's employment insurance system so that people will be eligible to collect benefits and those benefits will better suit their needs.

Bill C-280 is a relatively simple piece of legislation with two major objectives. It seeks to create a uniform level of entry for a person to make a claim of EI benefits by lowering the threshold to 360 hours for people in every region of Canada. And it seeks to award people benefits based on their best 12 weeks of earnings in the year prior to their claim instead of the current 14 weeks that are considered to set a benefit amount.

This week I had to pinch myself to see if I was actually dreaming when I heard the Liberals say over and over again that they are now interested in reforming employment insurance. We actually welcome their attention to this issue. They are uniquely positioned in this debate, since much of what we are attempting to repair is the damage that they inflicted on the system during their string of three majority governments in the 1990s.

That period is when their finance minister turned off the tap on employment insurance and turned EI into a tax on working people that fed their surplus budgets and helped them implement corporate tax cuts, a passion which is shared by their soulmates, the Conservatives.

I must say that I am overjoyed, as I am certain many unemployed workers are, that the Liberals have done a 180 degree turn and apparently now share our goal to see the threshold for entry lowered to 360 hours. This would end the regional distinction in the qualifying period and help EI flow to more Canadians who truly need it right now.

At present there are nine different sets of criteria in terms of hours worked for nine different ranges of regional unemployment rates. Workers in Canada may require anywhere from 420 to 700 hours of eligible work to be able to become a claimant of this benefit. This inequity is not suited for the kind of job losses we are seeing in Canada today. Regional unemployment rates are in flux and shift from day to day and week to week. EI needs to be able to better respond to this challenge.

We are hearing from groups as diverse as the TD Bank and the Caledon Institute that lowering the number of hours needed to qualify for employment insurance is the right thing to do to help us combat the global recession. They understand that employment insurance does not only serve the individual but the community and the country as well. They understand that there is more to an economy than balance sheets and mathematical equations. They know that the economy is in fact the people who make up our nation, our communities and our households. They view the economy in both the long and the short term, and they have come to recognize that the economic measure that will help support our goals and dreams for a better future is an employment insurance system that catches more people in its safety net, not less.

There will be those less enlightened perhaps, but not actually malicious who will contend that we cannot afford to make employment insurance more accessible. Of course we know this is not true. EI is actually running a big surplus which should be used to improve the program and ensure people have access to benefits. It is not meant to be used and should not be used to pay off the government's debts or deficits, contrary to the Conservatives' and the Liberals' beliefs.

There will be those who will argue that the government has already expanded the number of weeks a person can remain as a claimant in a direct response to these challenging economic issues. We know that these extra weeks that the Conservative government continues to trumpet have been put in place as a temporary stopgap and have been added to the end of the benefit period, where they are less likely to be collected. We have said in other debates that it would be better to remove the two week waiting period for new claimants and use two of those five weeks right away, but that is for another debate. What is clear is that we cannot afford to miss this opportunity.

There are plenty of left-wing supporters for this motion that we are debating today, but I am also interested in those who would not be considered of the left who are calling for the expansion of employment insurance as a means of stimulating the economy.

When the chief economist for Moody's credit rating service testified before the U.S. house committee on small business last July, he showed that apart from food stamps, the best bang for a government's buck was to ensure that unemployed workers had access to employment insurance benefits. To determine the effectiveness of differing stimulus measures, he compared their multipliers, an equation that gives a dollar amount for the economic activity created by government spending to stimulate the economy. His conclusion was shocking.

Typical right-wing solutions such as permanent tax cuts came in as losses, negative equations that saw the dollars spent fizzle in half or more. They were in fact drains on the economy. Infrastructure spending was quite good, with a multiplier of $1.59 for every dollar spent. The problem with infrastructure is the amount of time it takes to have the money flow through the economy.

The best way to get money into the economy immediately was through increased spending on employment insurance, believe it or not. With a multiplier of $1.64, it is a measure that performs well and what is more, it is an efficient stimulus. It flows directly to those in need and to the communities most affected by job losses.

New Democrats could not agree more. What we are saying here in Canada is similar. Our government is not hearing anything new from us today and we know that as a fact. The government received a prebudget submission which outlined these very points. It was not from the Canadian Labour Congress or some like-minded group that the government is accustomed to dismissing out of hand either. It was from the director of the MBA program of the Sprott School of Business.

This shows that the government is hearing calls for improvements to employment insurance from all sides of the debate. It is, interestingly enough, a unifying concept. Apart from increasing the number of people who are eligible to receive EI, this bill also hopes to improve the benefits received by people, such as seasonal workers, by reducing the number of weeks used to calculate the level of benefit from their best 14 weeks to their best 12.

This is a small change that will really help people who make most of their money in short periods of time. Seasonal workers are especially vulnerable to longer sampling periods to set their EI rates. Often they have short, intense periods of work during which they make the majority of their money. They may, however, work many more weeks at their jobs doing the maintenance work that is required to be able to engage in the short but lucrative periods that make these jobs worth doing.

This measure sets out to help recognize the special needs of the workers who do these types of jobs. It will help smaller and rural communities keep in place a workforce that allows them to employ people during their boom periods and weather the lean periods in between.

I have mentioned that I am pleased to see that the Liberals are now calling for the same entry threshold as I have set out in this bill and for which the New Democrats have been championing for many years now.

I can only hope they are not playing games with those who find themselves in hard times and that they actually will support this very legislation that reduces the qualifying hours to 360 and removes regional differences. However, I remain leery of commitments from that party, given the fact that I originate from the labour movement and I remember the Conservatives' about-face on anti-scab legislation. This very issue still resonates not only with me but with the thousands of brothers and sisters in the labour movement.

As for the Conservatives, it is hoped that we can hold them to their word when they made the commitment to make necessary changes to address the economic crisis as things evolve.

Given the number of job losses, sadly a number that keeps growing, is it not time that, contrary to the beliefs of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, the government needs to recognize that EI benefits are not lucrative and that it needs to take immediate action to rectify the problems the system has in terms of access to benefits for those who pay into it?

There is something fundamentally wrong when 1.4 million people are out of work and only 43% of them are able to receive benefits. Shame!

Given the way our manufacturing, forestry and mining sectors have been brutalized, surely the time to revisit our response to these challenges is upon us. It is time to recognize the need for fundamental change that will ensure those who have paid their premiums can actually access EI benefits when they fall on hard times.

I hope all parties in the House get behind the bill, as it will set about repairing a very worthwhile social program that has the potential to serve all Canadians at a time when all of us in this place are being looked upon for leadership and solutions to a unique crisis that will define this Parliament.

I would like to add a few of the comments that I have come across since the budget was implemented and the issues about the problems with EI.

I could quote Ken Georgetti, from the Canadian Labour Congress, who said:

People desperately need their government's help to protect and create jobs and to support the unemployed.

Mayor Miller of Toronto said:

We're quite concerned. The fact that the most vulnerable haven't been protected with appropriate changes to the E.I. program is very problematic for all cities.

The mayors and the reeves of these communities have all raised their concerns with regard to the changes to EI that need to occur. They have indicated that currently the fact that only 43% of people can actually have access to EI has been causing grave concern to them with regard to their welfare rolls. If people cannot access EI, they have to access welfare. With the two-week waiting period, those who can access EI actually end up on the welfare rolls anyhow because they are waiting for their cheques to come in.

The government seems to think it is okay to do that, that we can make people suffer at the beginning and just try to increase their rates at the end. However, at the end of the day, normally people will find work within 20 weeks and never have a chance to access those benefits.

I would like to quote a CanWest article, which reports:

Economists at TD Bank said Thursday that the federal government should make it easier for newly unemployed workers to receive benefits and should reverse changes it made to the formula that sets the premiums to be paid by employees and employers.

What is even more interesting is the comment that the article attributes to John McCallum on this very issue:

These are things we've been saying for a long, long time....

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would like to remind the member not to refer to hon. members by their given name.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

The fact of the matter is that the Liberals say that changes have been needed for a long, long time. They certainly had not moved on them when they were in power, which leads us to wonder whether they will come through on the 360 hours.

Just on that note, I think it is extremely important to recognize that we actually do need the changes to EI and that this is a perfect time to debate the issue and to bring it forward so that we can make sure that people are able to support themselves during these tough economic times.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important initiative, of course, and I applaud the member for bringing it forward.

My riding is largely a forestry dependent community, and I know the member's riding has similar issues.

In my riding, the unemployment rate is actually tied to Vancouver's. I live on Vancouver Island. Talk about western alienation. Anybody west of the Rockies understands that Vancouver is very different from Vancouver Island.

The workers in my riding are expected to work far more hours than is realistic, because our unemployment rate is tied to the Vancouver labour market. I would like the member to comment on how the reduction in these hours would actually benefit forestry workers from coast to coast to coast.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a double whammy on this that will actually benefit the workers. The 360 hours would be across the board. No matter where one lives in the country, all one would need is 360 hours to qualify for employment insurance. Reducing it and making sure that it is the best 12 weeks as opposed to the best 14 weeks will actually enhance their premiums.

On that note, I want to thank the member. I understand the problem with forestry, because the government has failed to act on forestry. I have a lot of forestry in my area. They have been calling for access to reasonable credit for quite some time. I can say that most of those people are now trying to access employment insurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. I know she is talking about her bill, but I would ask her if she supports the expansion of the work-sharing agreement by 14 weeks. It would help 80,000 to 90,000 people. I would ask her if she supports the extension of benefits by five weeks and the maximum benefits.

Does she support the enhanced training that would help approximately 170,000 to 190,000 people or more? Does she support those benefits that have been enhanced specifically in training and upgrading?

If she does support those measures, why did she vote against each and every one of them? Why did her party not support any one of them?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at this. Certainly we support initiatives that actually enhance employment insurance. The only thing is that the initiatives have to be very worthwhile. My understanding is that the five weeks the government has put in has been done as a stipulation. It hopes that not very many people will access those five weeks because they are at the end.

As I mentioned before, most people will actually use up maybe about 20 weeks of employment insurance before they find a job. It would have been much better if the government would have taken some of that five weeks and put it at the beginning and put an extra three weeks at the end, but it refused to do that.

With respect to the fact that we voted against the budget, the Conservatives are going to say that we voted against all the measures. It was not all the measures that we voted against; it was all the underlying stipulations they put in that they were trying to get us to vote for, such as removing pay equity for women or the fact that they have actually attacked workers by not allowing them their raises.

I want to thank the member for the question, but that is exactly why we did not vote for their budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate. First, let me say that I do appreciate the intention behind this bill. All members of this House share concern for unemployed Canadians and their families. Losing a job is hard on workers and on their families. Unfortunately, too many Canadians have had to endure this.

When we are discussing changes to the employment insurance system, what Canadians need is a plan that suits the changing economic circumstances and that complements what this government is doing to help Canadians and their families get through this difficult economic time.

Our government has taken action to improve the employment insurance system to help Canadian families. Let me remind the members opposite about some of the good things we have done for Canadians so far.

Through our economic action plan, we have invested an unprecedented $8.3 billion in the Canada skills and transition strategy. This strategy will strengthen benefits for Canadian workers through the EI system. It will enhance and increase the availability of training. It will also keep EI premiums frozen, ensuring that both workers and employers do not face increased job-killing payroll taxes during this time of economic uncertainty. This keeps that money in the economy and helps protect jobs.

We are taking other actions to protect Canadian jobs. Right now, over 93,000 Canadian workers are benefiting from our expanded work-sharing program. We have improved the work-sharing program by extending the duration of the work-sharing agreements by 14 weeks, to a maximum of 52 weeks, for the next two years.

In addition, we are making it easier to qualify for the program. Ultimately, more Canadians will be able to continue working while their company is experiencing a temporary slowdown.

Furthermore, this government's economic action plan includes a new initiative to extend EI benefits to long-tenured workers while they pursue longer-term training in a new profession or sector. This initiative, implemented with the provinces and territories, will allow workers who have worked in a single industry for a long time and have been permanently laid off to receive EI benefits to a maximum of 104 weeks while they pursue training to prepare them for the jobs of the future. This measure specifically helps Canadians who have paid into the EI system for many years and who have not had to use it until now. These workers deserve help that respects their abilities and experience, and that is what the government is delivering.

In addition to this support, we will also allow earlier access to EI benefits for eligible workers who have received severance packages, if they use some or all of that severance to purchase skills upgrading or training for themselves.

We are also acting to support unemployed individuals who are unable to qualify for EI benefits. To that end, we are investing $500 million in the strategic training and transition fund. This fund will benefit some 50,000 Canadians and their families.

The reality is that our government is taking unprecedented steps to help Canadians who have lost jobs through no fault of their own.

Through the economic action plan, we will help over 400,000 people benefit from an additional five weeks of EI benefits in the first year alone. Those extra five weeks will help those workers and their families who are hardest hit, who have not been able to find work, at a time when they otherwise would be facing exhaustion of their benefits.

We have also increased the maximum duration of EI benefits available under the EI program from 45 weeks to 50 weeks, again helping those Canadians who are out of work for a longer period of time. And it is not insignificant; it is 400,000 people.

These measures, I might add, are on top of the automatic adjustments in the EI program that respond to changes in economic conditions.

As members can see, our government is committed to helping Canadians through this economic downturn and is taking unprecedented steps to help Canadians get back to work. Never before has there been such a concerted effort to reach out and help Canadians, and that help is coming from this Conservative government.

We recognize the challenges faced by those who have lost their jobs in these difficult times. That said, we want to ensure that any action we take is effective in both the short term and the longer term. That is why we are monitoring the effectiveness of our measures to ensure that the EI system is working and responding effectively to the evolving economic circumstances.

Our economic action plan is providing additional support over the short term, which makes more sense than costly and permanent changes to the EI program, changes that could have unintended consequences on the labour market and the viability of the system over the long term.

While we do not question the good intentions behind this proposed legislation, the NDP's proposal is uncosted and does not take into account the greater long-term impact on the labour market. These proposals need to be considered within the context of who will pay for all of this. Consideration must also be given to how this proposal will impact on helping Canadians get back to work so they can get jobs to put food on the table and to provide for their families.

The Liberals do not have a plan either and that is obvious. The newly crowned Liberal leader decided over the weekend, at the Liberal Party policy conference, to adopt an NDP policy. Is that not most remarkable? The problem with the Liberals is they do not have any credibility on this issue. Let us take a look at the Liberal record on employment insurance.

On May 4, the Winnipeg Free Press said, “The Liberals were the architects of the distortions in the EI programs”.

On April 29, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives published a study that said, “The Liberals gutted EI in the 1990s”.

Two senior figures at the Caledon Institute, a think tank the Liberal critic often likes to cite, had this to say in the April 21 edition of the Toronto Star. They said that during the Liberal years:

—Employees had to work longer to qualify for benefits; payments were lowered; and the maximum duration of benefits was reduced. Many more of the unemployed could not work enough hours to qualify.

Those change were made when the country was still slowly recovering from an economic slowdown and when there were still many Canadians out of work. That is the Liberal record.

The reality is that during the Liberal time in government, unemployed Canadians were hit hard by both the economy and the Liberal government. The reality is the Liberals have previously voted against all the EI changes they say they support today. That is hypocritical.

During this economic downturn, among other things, this government has increased the duration of benefits, increased the maximum benefit period and expanded work-sharing and training programs. We are making improvements to the system to help Canadians and Canadians see that.

As I said earlier, our government is monitoring the situation closely. We are monitoring the effectiveness of the actions we have taken to improve the EI system. We want to ensure that the EI system is working and responding effectively to the evolving economic circumstances. As the economic circumstances are continually changing, we continue to consider how best to help Canadians in ways that are responsible, sound and affordable.

There is a good read on the CFRB radio station website, a popular radio station in Toronto, the city that both the Liberal and NDP leaders call home. The piece brought up a quotation attributed to G.K. Chesterton and John F. Kennedy. It says, “Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up”.

The opposition members simply want to tear down the fence posts without consideration of why those posts are there. We see this constantly. If they see a post they do not like, they propose to tear it down, just like that. The Liberals especially should know better, since they put in many of the posts themselves, particularly the ones they seem to dislike most just now.

This government will not simply decide over the weekend to adopt this or that policy, to knock out this post or that post. We have taken responsible action already. We are considering all of our options carefully to ensure that any actions we take to help Canadians will be responsible and done for the right reasons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-280. I want to congratulate my colleague for introducing it.

I have a few things I want to say, but I cannot let go unchallenged what the parliamentary secretary has read from his speaking notes, provided by some un-named person in the lobby, which he picked up on the way in here.

He talked about the cuts that were made in the 1990s. He is older than I am, so he is old enough to recall the circumstance of Canada back in 1993, when his former Conservative government skulked out of town with its tail between its legs, leaving a $48 billion annual deficit, a debt that it had built up. When Mr. Trudeau left, that debt was $200 billion. By the time that government was finished, it was $500 billion.

Maybe the people in the lobby are not as good as I thought they were at putting these notes out. He should know that the cuts began with Mr. Mulroney in 1990. It was in 1990 when the federal government walked away from EI and said that employers and employees could carry the whole weight. That government did not want any part of it. That was when those people were building up the deficit.

There are a lot of history books that can tell us the difference between 1995 and 2008, but I will tell the members the difference. Back then we were coming out of a Conservative recession into a Liberal recovery. We are now coming out of a Liberal recovery and into a Conservative recession. Back then there was not one person in the country talking about stimulus. People were talking about debt. We were being called a third world economy because we were so far in debt.

Changes were made. Some of us liked them and some of us did not. The fact is we had a lot of problems in the country that we had to be dealt with and that is what we did back in 1995-96.

Members of his party, his ancestors, including the current Prime Minister, did not think we went far enough. They wanted further cuts. The predecessor to the current Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said the cuts were not deep enough.

Let me come back to today. Instead of people talking about paying down the debt, as they did in the 1990s, they are now talking about stimulus. My colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing mentioned stimulus and Ian Lee from the Sprott School of Business. There are three major ways of stimulating the economy.

I see my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook, the very learned chair of the HRSD committee, is nodding in agreement with what I am saying. He is amazed at what the parliamentary secretary said. He cannot believe it.

If we look at the three major ways to stimulate an economy, one is to provide tax breaks. However, tax breaks stimulate the people who do not need the stimulus. According to the Caledon Institute, tax breaks in the last budget will go to people making $150,000, including my colleagues. We will get $483 in tax breaks. A single income person with two kids receives nothing. Is that stimulus? Most MPs do not even know what they pay in taxes except for the very month when they have to file. They are not going to spend the money.

The people who need the money are the people who have nothing else on which to live. They get the money and they spend it, and it is a 1.6 turnover in the economy. That is how an economy is stimulated. It is helpful to the people who need the money as well. It is way better than tax breaks and a much better return than infrastructure.

The parliamentary secretary talked about our leader adopting a new position. From January 29 on, our leader was not even officially the leader, but he was already talking about EI. He said, and I am quoting from the paper now, “If the government fails on these accountability tests, including employment insurance, a confidence vote could trigger an election”. He said that on January 29, some time ago. Now he has called upon the Prime Minister to implement a national standard for employment insurance with a temporary 360 hour threshold for eligibility.

A letter appeared this week in La Presse in Montreal, written by Pierre Céré, who is a champion of workers in Quebec. I will just quote a bit. He said, “The EI system must become a program that provides economic security and thus the dignity of workers who lose their jobs and who are temporarily unemployed. The only partisanship, as we know it, is in that fight. That is why we do not hesitate to acknowledge the position of Mr. Ignatieff and encourage him in this direction”. However. it is not only—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The member is a veteran of the House and he knows not to refer to other members by their given names.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought the Leader of the Opposition was an exception. He is such an elevated person. I apologize, it will not happen again.

The Canadian Labour Congress is calling for changes to EI. Armine Yalnizyan, from the CCPA, most recently indicated, “There is a widespread consensus across the political spectrum that the Employment Insurance Act should be changed to make the entrance requirements uniform across the country and reduce the eligibility threshold to 360 hours”.

The C.D. Howe Institute, the great champion of Liberal thought, said it was surprised the government did not do more to enhance access.

Susan Riley, of the Ottawa Citizen, said, “If the government was serious about helping the hardest hit, it would have opened access to employment insurance, along with extending benefits to those who were already covered”.

There are some amazing people who one would not normally think would support a change to EI. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which one would not think would be championing EI, indicated in its prebudget report to the finance committee that the access issue needed to be addressed. It even suggested that we needed to look at, perhaps temporarily, the two-week waiting period. The response from the government was, “We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it”. Who said that? The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said that on January 28.

Harris/Decima, which recently had the Liberals in the lead, indicated in a poll, dated March 30, that in every region of the country, across all regions, people believed the scope of employment insurance should be expanded in terms of coverage and length. It is not just what one might think of as the usual suspects.

Some people who have done a lot of work on this. The alternative federal budget had suggested a number of changes and had put some costing on it.

It seems like everybody believes that we have to change the system, that there needs to be access by people who need it. The only ones who seem not to believe it are members of the government, not their spouses though. We heard recently that the wife of the Minister of Finance had some issues with him, that EI should be improved, that EI was punitive to the province of Ontario.

The government, which prides itself on dividing Canadians, is now breaking up families. It is dividing families among themselves. The Minister of Finance is clinging vainly to the hope that nothing will be changed. His wife is usually right, in my experience. She is saying that it should be opened up, that it is not fair to Ontario.

It is very clear that something has to happen. This is not a light subject; it is a very serious one.

I will read an email I received, which I got a kick out of. It states, “I heard you on TV talking about EI (employment insurance) and I was impressed with your arguments. I have never been a person who believes in a lot of what you refer to as social infrastructure, whatever that is, but to me EI should be opened up, at least for now. Why won't the government do anything without being forced into it?”

That is a very good question. Last week the TD Bank made recommendations, The Chamber of Commerce, the C.D. Howe Institute, the CCPA, the CLC, the CAW, the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Conference Board of Canada, everybody who has looked at this are saying people are hurting. One would not think the government would be as blind to that as it is.

Canadians are hurting. People are living paycheque to paycheque, even when they are employed. Now they do not have jobs and they do not have savings. They have not had the benefit of a member of Parliament's salary or a big business salary. A lot of working people are going paycheque to paycheque. When they are put out of work, it is hard enough to have to wait two weeks, but then to be told they will not get EI at all is really shameful.

On top of that, we have heard about delays across the country. All my colleagues have heard about people who have had to wait longer than 28 days, in some cases 40, 50 or 60 days. The member from Madawaska—Restigouche, the member for Cape Breton—Canso and a number of Liberals in the House have raised this issue. It is a serious subject.

EI needs to be opened up. If we are not going to open it up now, when are we going to open it up? People have paid into it for years and they have the right to collect it. It is the very least that the government should for them. Instead of giving them access, it is giving them arrogance and that is no longer good enough. We need better.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to be able to have an opportunity to speak today on C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

As you know, the Bloc Québécois defends the rights of workers who have lost their jobs with unequalled determination here in this House. Our desire to see a thorough reform of the employment insurance system is not, therefore, dictated by circumstances, such as a looming election, but is instead a constant. Since the founding of our party it has been our concern 365 days a year.

The employment insurance program is inadequate. We are not the only ones to say so. The OECD, the C.D. Howe Institute, the TD Bank, all of the labour congresses and workers' coalitions, and many others, are unanimous on the need to reform this program of worker protection, particularly in a period of economic crisis.

By beefing up this anemic program, the government would be killing two birds with one stone. First, it would be helping the hundreds of thousands of men and women who lose their jobs and find themselves ineligible for benefits and are therefore forced into the untenable position of having to find a new job in tough economic times. Second, as if the first point were not sufficient, we need to realize that EI benefits constitute one of the best ways to stimulate the economy, twice as much as any tax reductions, of course. Yet all that would be needed to significantly improve the employment insurance program is a mere fraction of the amount the government has distributed as income tax reductions.

I should make it clear from the start that I am absolutely in favour of the principle of this bill, as my opening remarks ought to have made clear. It contains a number of measures that we in the Bloc Québécois have been proposing for some time. I would, however, like to express at least some of the reservations I have about the bill.

Unlike the motion introduced in this House by the NDP on one of their opposition days, this bill does not include any measures to increase the rate of benefits to 60%, but rather maintains it at 55%. For the Bloc Québécois, such an increase is absolutely crucial and that is why we are suggesting that the committee take a closer look specifically at this matter and that the rate be adjusted to 60%.

In addition, concerning subclause 7.1, the bill refers to a relaxing of the eligibility criteria for people who have violated the rules of the EI system. We are in favour of such a measure, but the new criteria appear rather arbitrary. At the very least, clarifications are needed concerning how thresholds are established in the bill.

Apart from those two reservations, as I was saying, we fully support the principle of this bill. I would like to discuss the measures it proposes one by one.

First, setting the minimum eligibility threshold of 360 hours to qualify for regular or special benefits will be particularly beneficial to the workers who are currently unable to exercise their rights, even though they have paid into the system, day after day and week after week. At this time, that threshold varies between 420 and 910 hours. That is much too high, and that is the main reason why so many unemployed workers are excluded from the coverage offered by the system.

These rules penalize seasonal workers in particular, who experience the spring gap that some call a “black hole”, that is, that time of the year when they find themselves with no income, while they wait for their work season to return. The rules also penalize those who hold unstable jobs or work in non-standard employment. Many such workers are women, including single mothers who already have difficulty making ends meet, and who increasingly bear the brunt of these misguided policies.

With the number of hours set at 360, which the Bloc has long called for, an estimated 70% to 80% of unemployed workers could collect benefits, and the level of coverage would be returned to what it was 20 years ago. It has to be said, the most urgent difficulty with the employment insurance system is the coverage it provides to workers. In fact, in 1989, or 20 years ago, the claimant/unemployed ratio, used by everyone except perhaps the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, was 84%. Today, according to the most recent estimates from the chief actuary of the Employment Insurance Commission, it is 46%. What is the reason for such a dramatic drop?

We have no choice but to lay the blame at the feet of the Liberals who, in the 1990s, literally cut off access to the system by making the eligibility criteria so stringent that almost 40% of workers were excluded. In many cases, it was the same Liberals who today denounce the unfairness and express outrage after finally opening their eyes to the reality that they created. But as the saying goes, only a fool does not change his mind. Popular wisdom will now suggest that the fools have been joined by the Conservatives who, on the surface, despite the combined efforts of the opposition parties, do not seem to see the obvious: the employment insurance system is inadequate.

There are so many problems with the system, and that is why the member for Chambly—Borduas introduced Bill C-308, which would make major changes to the system to turn it back into what it is meant to be: a real insurance plan rather than a tax by some other name, as it was under the Liberals, or a way to punish the unemployed, as it is under the Conservative government.

One of the punitive elements in the system is the waiting period, which is absolutely unjustifiable because it is based on the idea that claimants are all potential fraudsters.

I want to make it clear that eliminating the waiting period would not mean paying out two extra weeks. It absolutely does not conflict with adding five weeks to the maximum benefit period. It would just eliminate the very long and very unnecessary two-week delay before people receive their benefits.

Imagine a worker who suddenly loses his or her job—that is not hard to do—and who has to wait 60 days for the claim to be processed—which happens all too often—and who then has to wait another two weeks before collecting his or her first employment insurance cheque.

The statements made this afternoon in oral question period by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development are totally incorrect. It is not true that 82% of contributors to the plan can receive employment insurance. In the latest report on employment insurance coverage, the department's figures were much gloomier. In fact, barely 68% of contributors had access to EI benefits. That is completely unacceptable.

The minister compared the employment insurance system to a private system, which is rather cynical because she reduced the state's role to that of a corporation motivated solely by financial gain.

Following that logic, it would mean that an insurer could decide not to compensate 32% of its clients. Nobody would stand for that kind of attitude. Such a company would be accused of scandal, fraud, theft and mean-spiritedness, and with good reason.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I can also add that all the witnesses we have heard since I have been sitting on that committee—all of them, without exception—have called for EI reform and a complete overhaul of the system, so that it will actually help them, especially in these tough economic times.

In closing, I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois has once again proposed an economic recovery plan. Our plan is costed, realistic and pragmatic. It would fix the holes in the social safety net, restore confidence, stimulate employment and investment, support Quebec and the provinces and stimulate strategic spending on things like measures to reduce oil dependency.

I invite all parliamentarians to read it. Unlike others, members of the Bloc Québécois do not hide when it is time to take a stand on ways to get Quebec and Canada through the economic crisis.

Our plan will reassure workers who lose their jobs by providing them with a more accessible and generous employment insurance program, and it will stimulate household spending by enabling workers who have lost their jobs to get the benefits they need to keep the economy going.

I believe that the measures in Bill C-280 will help achieve those same goals, so it is my great pleasure to support this bill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking and congratulating my colleague, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, for the work that she has done to bring forward this bill. It is something that we in the NDP are so proud to bring forward and to show leadership on behalf of so many Canadians who are living in such a difficult situation during these times.

This bill, that has been brought forward in this House, comes down to a fundamental question of justice. It is about ensuring that there is justice for people who have lost their jobs, not only as a result of this economic downturn but who lose their jobs even at the best of times, people who day in and day out work hard, pay into an employment insurance fund that they expect to be there when they fall on hard times.

The sad story here is that many Canadians are never able to access this fund. In fact, more than 50% of Canadians are unable to access a fund that they invested in time and time again. That is why we are proposing to deal with some of the major pieces attached to the employment insurance fund that would help and support more Canadians when they do fall on hard times and lose their jobs.

We are asking the government to implement a lowering of the threshold for claimants to 360 hours in order for them to be able to access EI. This is not only the right thing to do at this time of an economic downturn but this is the right thing to do at all times. This in fact reflects the challenges and the situation in which so many Canadians live.

I would like to talk a bit about some of the groups that stand to benefit particularly from changing the regulations of EI so that it is more accessible to them. For example, women are less able to access EI from coast to coast to coast, in part because they often find themselves in jobs where they are not able to accumulate that many hours, whether it is in service industries or part-time work.

It is what is referred to as the pink ghetto, the fact that many women end up working in jobs that, whether it is for lower pay or lower benefits, at the end of the day they are unable to accumulate the number of hours that would allow them to access a fund into which they have also paid.

The second point is seasonal workers. I am sure many of us in the House represent ridings in which much of the economic benefit comes from the hard work of seasonal workers. As the member of Parliament for Churchill, I represent many fishers who live across northern Manitoba, fishers who spend months out on Lake Winnipeg or on lakes all across northern Manitoba, bringing in economic stimulus to their first nations and northern communities.

In fact, I would like to recognize the hard work of elder Harold Disbrowe, who unfortunately passed away this week. He was a leader for the fishers in Berens River, who fought to have the recognition that seasonal workers who pay into the EI fund ought to be able to access it, despite the fewer hours that they often accumulate.

I would also like to juxtapose that to the fact that many of these people work in communities that do not have the employment that so many of us Canadians enjoy in our urban centres. In first nations and rural communities, the economic opportunities often are not there, so people and their families depend upon seasonal work such as the fishing industry.

That is why we need to ensure that when they fall on hard times, whether it is as a result of the drop in exports or whether it is the overall economic climate, they are also able to access the employment insurance fund.

I would also like to highlight the particular situation that young people face. In fact today, we heard that young people are facing some of the highest unemployment rates in 11 years. Young people find themselves working in industries and jobs where they are unable to accumulate the number of hours that, as it stands right now, would allow them to access employment insurance, something that they also pay into.

Is that the way we should be treating our future generations? Is that the way we should be treating seasonal workers who bring so much wealth and benefit to our communities? Is that the way we should be treating 51% of the population, women, who oftentimes are unable to accumulate the number of hours that would allow them to access employment insurance?

My colleague raised the issue of costing. I find it quite rich that the Conservatives, along with the Liberals in the nineties and ever since, have had no problem accessing money from the EI fund to pay off all sorts of things, including giving corporate tax cuts at the expense of workers when they are laid off. What happened to that $56 billion surplus in the EI fund, which was put there through the hard work of Canadians? Where did that money go?

When we talk about the costing of this particular measure, we need to recognize that this would be part of the EI fund. It would not come from general government coffers. It would come from the fund that accumulates based on the money that working Canadians contribute. The EI fund, after all, is meant to be there for workers when they lose their jobs, not for priorities based on whatever the government of the day sees them to be. It is something that ought to be there for workers to depend on and is guaranteed to be there for them to depend on in many ways. We need to ensure the money is there.

It has been referenced by my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing that there is a diversity of people, different stakeholders, different people across Canadian society who have expressed serious concern about the commitments that have been made by the government with respect to employment insurance, whether it is people from the labour community, our brothers and sisters in the Canadian Labour Congress, or people in the business and banking community.

A TD Bank economist pointed out that Canadian governments have a poor track record, allowing short term measures to lapse, recognizing that we need to be looking at long term changes to a fund as fundamental as the employment insurance fund to ensure the well-being of workers when they fall upon hard times.

Fundamentally, we need to be looking at restructuring a fund that is so important, not just for the survival of people who have lost their jobs and the survival of their families, but also recognizing that it brings an economic stimulus of, I believe, a 1.6% return on every $1 of EI that is given out. It also prevents people from entering into the welfare system, which, for many people, is hard to come out of.

We need to ensure we are standing up for the well-being of Canadians who have been unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. We need to be looking at measures that are not just short term but are looking at the well-being of Canadians in the long term sense.

I am encouraged to note that our seatmates on the Liberal side of the House are looking positively at these measures. However, my concern is their past track record in terms of dipping their hands into the EI surplus fund.

I stand here to call upon the Government of Canada to recognize that this bill is fundamentally about the justice that Canadians deserve as they work hard, day in and day out, to ensure there is something for the well-being of all of us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-280 proposed by the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. The bill seeks to change a number of provisions of the Employment Insurance Act regarding benefit calculations and qualifications.

Before I address the bill, I would like to speak about our government's responsible and substantial actions to help Canadians get back to work through our unprecedented investments in skills development and programs that will help Canadians prepare for the jobs of the future.

As announced in our economic action plan, our government is implementing targeted actions that will inject immediate stimulus to the economy, promote long term growth and directly help unemployed Canadians deal with this economic downturn.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said it best when she recently appeared before the human resources committee and said:

...we're well aware of the challenges that many Canadians are facing in these uncertain economic times particularly as unemployment rises. To address these challenges, our government is making record investments to stimulate the economy, to support the unemployed, to preserve jobs, and to retrain workers for the jobs of the future. With the co-operation of our provincial and territorial partners the federal government's economic action plan will inject almost $52 billion into the Canadian economy over the next two years. We know that jobs are the key to economic recovery and that's where our economic action plan is built on three pillars: creating jobs, preserving jobs, and preparing Canadians for the jobs of the future.

Creating jobs, preserving jobs and preparing Canadians for the jobs of the future, that is what our plan is all about. Among other things, we are providing an additional $1 billion over two years for the provinces and territories through existing labour market development agreements for skills training. This initiative is only one part of our $8.3 billion Canada skills and transition strategy.

This strategy will help Canadian workers through the EI system by strengthening benefits. It is will enhance and increase the availability of training to Canadians who qualify for EI and for those who do not. It will also keep EI premiums rates frozen, ensuring that workers and employers are not further hurt by an increase in EI premiums during this difficult economic time.

We are also acting to protect Canadian jobs. We have improved the work sharing program by extending the duration of work sharing agreements by 14 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks. As the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development shared with this House earlier in the week, over 93,000—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The member for Niagara West—Glanbrook will have seven minutes when the House next returns to this matter.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.