Bill C-308 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system)

This enactment makes a number of amendments to the Employment Insurance Act. Specifically, it
(a) reduces the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment;
(b) increases the benefit period;
(c) increases the rate of weekly benefits to 60%;
(d) eliminates the distinctions between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force;
(e) eliminates the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length;
(f) increases the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $42,500 and introduces an indexing formula; and
(g) adds a new Part VIII.01 to the Act relating to self-employed persons.

Royal Recommendation and Ways and Means Motions

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before we begin private members' business today, I would like to make a brief statement regarding the issue of royal recommendation and ways and means motions with respect to private members' business

Just as individual items of private members' business continue their legislative progress from session to session, the Chair's rulings on those same items likewise survive prorogation.

Specifically there are nine bills on which the Chair either commented, ruled or has heard a point of order with regard to the issue of the royal recommendation. There was also one bill on which a point of order was raised regarding the requirement for a ways and means motion.

The purpose of this statement is to remind the House of those rulings and of the questions that remain to be dealt with.

Members will recall that, during the last session, some private members’ bills were found by the Chair to require a royal recommendation. At the time of prorogation, there were seven such bills on the order of precedence or in committee.

Let us review briefly the situation in each of these seven cases.

Three of these bills were awaiting report stage in the House at the time of prorogation, namely: Bill C-201, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity), standing in the name of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore;

Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), standing in the name of the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi;

Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), standing in the name of the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

On May 12, 2009, the chair had ruled that Bill C-201, in its form at second reading, needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. In committee, all clauses of the bill were deleted. In its present eviscerated form, Bill C-201 need no longer be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

As for Bill C-241 and Bill C-280, the chair ruled on April 22, 2009 and on June 3, 2009 respectively, that these bills in their present forms required royal recommendation. The committee stage has not altered this finding.

The following four bills were at committee stage: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), standing in the name of the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska was before the Standing Committee on Finance; Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), standing in the name of the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, standing in the name of the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, was before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology;

finally, Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), standing in the name of the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé was before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The Chair ruled that all these bills in their present forms needed to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. The rulings were given on October 23, 2009 for Bill C-290, on October 29, 2009 for Bill C-308, on June 16, 2009 for Bill C-309 and, more recently, on November 16, 2009 for Bill C-395.

Furthermore, points of order were raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader at the end of the last session with respect to the need for a royal recommendation for two bills. These are: Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave) standing in the name of the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead and Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Both of these bills were at second reading.

Just as was done in the last session, the Chair invites other members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for those two bills or any of the other bills on the order of precedence to do so at an early opportunity in order for the Chair to come back to the House with a ruling as soon as possible.

Finally, a point of order was raised during the last session regarding Bill C-470, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (revocation of registration), standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, arguing that it should have been proceeded by a ways and means motion. The Chair has taken the matter under consideration and a ruling will be delivered in the days to come.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

It being 1:35, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business. Standing Order 86.1 states that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that have been listed on the order paper during the previous session shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 40th Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

All items will keep the same number as in the first and second sessions of the 40th Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the order paper, but had not yet been introduced, will be republished on the order paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be re-certified by the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

All items in the order of precedence are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation. Thus, they shall stand, if necessary, on the order paper in the same place or, as the case may be, referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

At prorogation, there were 11 private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to the appropriate committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97, committees will be required to report on these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, one private members’ bill originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.

Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted this bill.

As they are no longer members of this House, all the items standing in the name of Ms. Dawn Black, Mr. Bill Casey and Mr. Paul Crête will be dropped from the order paper.

Consideration of Private Members’ Business will start on Friday, March 5, 2010.

To conclude, hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in the third session. In addition, the table can answer any questions members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, they're still looking.

Mr. Bédard, I want to thank you very much, once again, for taking the time out of your schedule to be here today. You can step back from the table whenever you want.

I want to remind committee members that when we come back in the new year we have Bill C-308, Mr. Lessard's bill. We have Bill C-395. We have our report on poverty, which we're still working on. And we have a motion that came forward in terms of dealing with some studies. It's motion M-386 regarding adoption and things like that.

When we come back in the new year I'm going to suggest that we have a subcommittee meeting right away to determine the order of preference of business and try to map out a plan.

I wanted to throw that out to the committee since this is our last meeting before we break for Christmas.

I see a couple of hands.

Mr. Martin and then Ms. Minna.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on October 7, 2009 concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute) standing in the name of the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this important matter, as well as the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his remarks concerning the bill.

In presenting his concerns with respect to Bill C-395, the parliamentary secretary stated that in his view the bill infringes upon the financial initiative of the crown. Specifically, he pointed out that the bill seeks to change the purposes of the Employment Insurance Act by adding a new provision that would extend the qualifying period for an undefined period in case of a work stoppage caused by a labour dispute. He also argued that by altering the calculation of the qualifying period, the bill would result in increased government spending on employment insurance.

In support of his contention that the bill requires a royal recommendation, the parliamentary secretary made reference to a Speaker's ruling on Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits) on March 23, 2007 and a ruling by the Speaker of the Senate in Bill S-207, an Act to Amend the Employment Insurance Act (foreign postings) on January 29, 2009.

Both bills were similar to the present bill in that they sought to modify the employment insurance qualifying period, and both were found to require royal recommendation.

In his intervention, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé argued that a royal recommendation is not required since the funds in the employment insurance account are paid by workers and employers and do not constitute government funds.

The Chair has examined the bill carefully and, it is clear beyond all doubt that Bill C-395 alters the terms and conditions of the existing program under the Employment Insurance Act. The argument put forth by the hon. member for Berthier--Maskinongé regarding whether or not funds contributed to the employment insurance fund constitute public revenue is a recurring argument. It has been brought forward during similar discussions on Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system) as well as Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system) from the previous Parliament. In essence, all monies received by the government, regardless of source, are deposited in the consolidated revenue fund and become public funds, that is, funds of the Crown. The Constitution Act of 1867 and Standing Order 79 apply to these funds. Thus, a bill proposing a new or increased expenditure of public funds, that is, an appropriation, requires a royal recommendation.

The employment insurance program operates under this framework. The funds in question are public funds and their management is subject to the financial initiative of the Crown.

By extending the qualifying period for employment insurance benefits by the amount of time a person was unemployed due to a work stoppage resulting from a labour dispute, Bill C-395 is increasing the expenditures under the act. These expenditures would be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. As the House is aware, such provisions can only be put to the House for a final decision if they are accompanied by a royal recommendation as set out in Standing Order 79(1). Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

Today's debate, however, is on the motion for second reading, and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the current debate.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-56, which will for the first time give a certain number of rights to self-employed workers, it is rather appalling that the major national parties are taking the credit for doing nothing to improve the living conditions of those who lose their jobs. It is quite surprising. They stated that they brought forward many proposals but at no time did they get together to finally take the next step of reforming the employment insurance program in order to restore its original purpose—to support and protect workers who have the misfortune of losing their jobs.

I am also surprised that two of my colleagues raised the fact that we could rejoice because of this bill and begin celebrating Christmas. I do not think there is anything to celebrate. There is no cause to celebrate, especially not for the unemployed because they will not be in a festive mood. In fact, I doubt that most of them have anything to be happy about, even at Christmas, because a large number—the majority of those who lost their jobs—will find themselves without income or with the small income provided by their provinces in the form of social assistance, the support of last resort.

Bill C-56 is not what is going to improve the situation. The only merit to be found in that bill is that for the first time it recognizes the rights of self-employed persons. Even though they do not have many rights, it is a first step, I would say, toward improving a social safety net that is perhaps, however, not identical to what other workers have. It needs to be improved, but it is a step in the right direction.

Members have been using the term “travailleurs autonomes” for self-employed persons. The term used in the bill is “travailleurs indépendants”. That is fine with me. We like it a lot, even though it also refers to workers who are federalists. But if we talk about workers who are “indépendants”, that is fine with me. The more there are, the better, not independent workers but people who are going to work for Quebec’s independence.

In recent years, the Bloc has never stopped calling for coverage for self-employed persons. In the last two economic recovery plans we presented, there were very specific measures for self-employed persons, particularly in the last one we presented in this House.

Bill C-56 refers to four kinds of special leave, but two of them will not apply in Quebec. Why? Because since March 1, 2005, there has been an agreement between Quebec and the federal government to transfer responsibility for maternity and parental leave to Quebec, along with part of the deduction for premiums that was to be allocated to support that program. Right now in Quebec, about 500,000 workers are considered to be self-employed.

Bill C-56 also provides for access to the program to be voluntary. We shall see whether making it voluntary, with the criteria being proposed at present, does not create problems in terms of genuine protection for those people.

We support the bill in principle for the reasons I stated at the outset. For the first time, it grants rights under the employment insurance scheme for self-employed persons, and in that respect we welcome this initiative.

We very much hope that the government, that is, the Conservative Party, will be open and work with us on making amendments to its own bill.

What also causes problems for us, and we will submit this for debate, is that we were hoping that when self-employed persons were given rights it would also mean granting employment insurance benefits from the point when they found themselves jobless.

An individual who owns a small business or is self-employed may sometimes in fact find themselves with no contract or no retainer so they can continue to work. As a result, they are left without an income. II think this is an aspect that should be debated. Certainly we are going to work to have this bill passed on second reading to make sure it can be debated in committee.

There is also another problem, however. In my view, it is a major problem. That is the entire question of how premium rates are set, which seems to us to be somewhat random. As well, the projected premiums for the benefits that will be made available to these people seems to be much too high.

Remember that the bill is intended to provide self-employed persons with benefits during special leave. There are four kinds of special leave. There are maternity benefits for up to 15 weeks and parental or adoption benefits for up to 35 weeks. We agree on that. The maternity and parental leave benefits are the parts that cost the most, 75% of the total estimated cost. This is a responsibility that Quebec already assumes.

That means the bill does not apply to self-employed persons in Quebec. Only some of its provisions apply. The two provisions that apply are sickness benefits, for up to 15 weeks, and compassionate care benefits for up to six weeks. However, these two benefits account for only 25% of the total cost of Bill C-56.

The members can probably see where I am coming from. Self-employed persons in the rest of Canada will pay their full contribution to be entitled to these four benefits, while in Quebec, they will pay their full contribution to be entitled to only two benefits, representing 25% of the total cost.

Self-employed persons in Quebec are going to contribute as if they were receiving all four of the special kinds of leave I listed, in addition to the benefits they get if they lose their job. There is something very questionable about this.

The answer we are given is that as self-employed persons, they are assumed to be employers as well and the employer’s share will offset their contributions.

Even if we follow this reasoning and add the employer’s share, the final amount is still much less. This even implies that the transfers currently provided to Quebec for maternity leave and parental leave are far too low. That is another debate, though, that we will take up in another forum.

For the time being, let us just say that the cost of this for self-employed persons in Quebec is clearly too high. Some very specific work needs to be done to give us the information we requested. I hope we will get it. We had a briefing two evenings ago with some senior officials. We asked for the actual cost of each of the measures in the bill: the actual cost of the maternity leave and parental leave, the actual cost of the compassionate care leave, and the actual cost of the illness leave. They are nowhere to be found here. We have to refer to the amounts that Quebec pays for parental leave and maternity leave. We conclude from this that the cost is clearly too high.

The coverage that is provided applies to self-employed persons earning at least $6,000 a year. I understand this is to facilitate the accounting rules in regard to taxation. The contributions that self-employed persons make will be determined when they fill out their income tax returns, that is to say, at the end of the financial year on the basis of their income during that year.

This brings me to another aspect of the bill that we need to take a closer look at. Self-employed workers who pay their premiums this year and then take six weeks of compassionate care leave, the purpose of which is to provide end-of-life care, would therefore be making a commitment to contribute for the rest of their working lives as self-employed persons. Yet, participation is said to be voluntary. I can understand that they cannot just make an opportunistic contribution and pull out after availing themselves of the plan. I understand that. We should, however, see if something could not be done differently, because this seems to be going too far.

Those who contribute for one year will be able to withdraw from the plan at any time, provided they have not availed themselves of it. If self-employed individuals join—and let us not forget that participation is voluntary—they will be able to withdraw, as long as they have not availed themselves of the plan. Otherwise, they will have to participate for the rest of their working lives. We should look for a way to come up with a more realistic measure with respect to the type of commitment self-employed workers have to make.

Before yielding the floor to a member from a different party, let me remind the House that, in Quebec, the self-employed will continue to benefit from maternity and parental leave administered by Quebec. Therefore, they will not benefit from this bill like the rest of Canada.

They will be charged the same amounts, which represent 75% of the costs, while Quebec will be assuming the largest part of the costs, given that maternity leave and parental leave make up 75% of special leave costs. The percentages for the self-employed will be reversed. While the federal government bears 25% of the costs, they will have to pay 100% in terms of premiums. The way the Conservatives look at it, this represents 75% of the total cost, and the federal government will be responsible for 25%. We estimate that the self-employed will be paying 50% too much.

This bill also provides that a person who is absent from work because of a work-related injury will be covered. In Quebec, we have a program supervised by the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, the CSST, which covers costs and which pays benefits to a person who is absent from work because of an occupational injury or disease. Federal coverage will now be provided, but this will not benefit Quebec, because it has already provided such services since the late sixties. Quebec workers are paying good money for that protection. In fact, it is primarily employers who contribute to the fund, because of their responsibility as employers. Providing coverage in Quebec will not cost the federal government anything because coverage is already provided, but self-employed persons will have to pay premiums to the federal government. This is another point that we will have to examine very closely during our review in committee.

What we need is a comprehensive overhaul of the employment insurance system. As we mentioned, Bill C-308, which I sponsored for the Bloc Québécois, proposes some measures that should be part of this process, including working 360 hours to qualify for benefits, making the 50-week benefit period—instead of 45 weeks—permanent, and increasing the rate of weekly benefits to 60% of a claimant's earnings. Our bill also provides coverage for self-employed persons.

The government would have achieved two things by supporting Bill C-308, ensuring its passage through all the stages, and not seeking royal assent. This would have allowed us to do a really conscientious job and, more importantly, would have been socially responsible, because we would have taken into consideration a number of factors to avoid the aberrations that we mentioned earlier and that will have to be corrected along the way.

So we are going to support the principle of this legislation, as long as we can make the amendments that I suggested earlier. In the meantime, I urge the government and all parliamentarians to also support my Bill C-308, at third reading, in the near future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for the work he has done on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and also for convincing his Liberal colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-308, a bill that reforms employment insurance, at second reading. We dare to hope that the Conservatives will vote in favour of this bill at third reading.

I have the following question for my colleague. He mentioned that he had a hard time understanding how the government determined the premiums for self-employed workers. They also seem illogical to us, compared to the benefits, especially in Quebec. He mentioned quite rightly that Quebec has had its own plan since March 1, 2005. This plan came out of an agreement with the federal government to transfer responsibility for maternity and parental leave to Quebec, along with a transfer of 35¢ per $100 of earnings.

I would like to know how my colleague and his party understand this approach, which consists in having self-employed workers pay the full premium when they receive only a portion of the benefits and job loss benefits are not even included. Yet these workers will pay the same amount as if they were covered for job loss benefits.

Employment Insurance Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-308 under private members' business.

The House resumed from October 29, consideration of the motion that Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second Reading

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

I did not make that noise, it was our Conservative colleague. It bothers him to hear that and for good reason. If I were in his shoes, I would be ashamed to have to maintain that position. That is enough to make him do what he just did.

Bill C-308 contains measures that do not have the budgetary impact or require the financial commitment indicated by the Conservative government. The Conservatives have a tendency of inflating figures. For example, at some point they stated that the bill would cost $4 billion and later it was $7 billion. They are like someone who wants to put down his dog and, when he does, blames it on rabies. When they want to kill a bill they say that it will cost $7 billion or $8 billion.

The costs are very limited because there are two measures that are may require spending. On the one hand, we have the 360 hours; on the other, lengthening the benefit period. The benefit period has already been increased to 50 weeks. We just have to keep it the same.

We are at a point, especially during this economic crisis, where we have to recognize the damage we have done to the system and the impact it has on the unemployed.

I invite all my colleagues in the House of Commons to vote for this bill, which will restore some dignity to those who lose their jobs.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague from Chambly—Borduas for introducing Bill C-308, which seeks to make badly needed reforms and improvements to the employment insurance program.

It is imperative to restore the true purpose of the employment insurance program, which is to give workers the assurance that they will have supplementary income if they lose their job.

Here is some background for those who have forgotten the real mission of this program. When employment insurance was created in 1940, eligibility was based on the number of weeks an unemployed worker had worked in a previous job. Since 1996, eligibility has been based on hours worked during a given period, regardless of the number of jobs a person has held. This change meant that more workers could contribute to the plan, including part-time, temporary and seasonal workers and students. But these workers, in addition to being vulnerable, had a hard time qualifying for benefits because the minimum number of hours of work needed to qualify was increased.

Coverage started with the first hour worked, and the eligibility threshold was based on hours, not weeks of insurable employment. The eligibility threshold for new entrants and re-entrants to the labour force was raised from the equivalent of 700 hours to the equivalent of 910 hours.

New contributors became the first victims of this new rip-off by the Chrétien government, because the vast majority of them were now excluded.

The government brought in a new measure: the intensity rule. Under this provision, benefits rates varied from 50% to 55%. The rate went down as the number of weeks of benefits received during a five-year period went up. This reform gradually reduced the maximum benefit period from 50 to 45 weeks. The government initially provided that, after five years, those who were subject to this rule would no longer be eligible for benefits. To justify their action, the Liberals claimed it was an incentive to work longer.

I should also mention that the government has not paid a single cent into the EI fund since 1990. Only workers and employers pay into the fund. But that has not prevented the government from raiding the EI fund and stealing money from the unemployed.

We can see the sort of consideration these members had for workers in regions where employment is often seasonal in sectors such as tourism, fishing and agri-food.

It is worth reminding the government that an insurance premium is not a tax. The government seems to forget that. Using the employment insurance fund to reduce the deficit and finance other general expenses is a departure from the principle and the purpose of this insurance plan. The unemployed have been the real victims of the war against the deficit waged by governments, who have reduced their debt at the expense of those who needed that money. By abusing this fund, the government has turned employment insurance premiums into a new tax. Employers are subject to a supplementary tax to provide employment and workers are taxed for going to work. This strategy is an abusive use of that money, and I would go so far as to say that it is the theft of the century.

Even during this economic recession, the government was not justified in attacking the unemployed instead of unemployment. Now, this $54 billion surplus must be used for its original purpose: to provide financial support for the unemployed. We have to restore a law that fully plays its role of protecting all workers. Anything else is embezzlement.

The Bloc Québécois believes it is important to clear up any misunderstandings and reinstate the original intention of the plan as an insurance program for workers who lose their employment and not a tax on employment.

By making this draconian change to eligibility for employment insurance, the Liberal government, and the Conservatives today, have contributed to making workers poorer and are the architects behind the increased level of unemployment and the slow recovery of the economy. What is more, by helping themselves to the surpluses generated by this fund, the governments have behaved like true white collar criminals. In the private sector, if entrepreneurs or administrators acted that way with the insurance fund, they would have all been thrown in jail.

The changes to employment insurance changed the ratio of claimants to unemployed from 84.5% in 1989 to 46.1% in 2006. Under the Liberals, when the surplus in the employment insurance fund reached its peak, insurance coverage under the plan had never been more restrictive.

Access to employment insurance dropped from 57% in 1993 to 43% in 2006. Today, with Bill C-308, presented by the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas, we want to correct past wrongs and give this social plan its original purpose back.

Here is what the Bloc Québécois is proposing: lower the eligibility threshold to 360 hours, and not only in times of crisis, which is what the Liberals are proposing; increase the duration of benefits; increase the weekly coverage rate to 60%; eliminate the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm's length; increase the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $41,500; and introduce an indexing formula. Finally, the bill would also allow self-employed workers to access employment insurance.

The Conservative government now has a golden opportunity to help the victims of the economic crisis and make a significant contribution to economic recovery. For the Liberal Party, this is an olive branch, an opportunity for them to clean up the mess they made with their previous reforms.

If the Conservative members vote once again against these employment insurance reforms, they will be demonstrating once again that their political party is antisocial and anti-Quebec, and that they prefer to maintain their actions and their reforms for the benefit of wealthy people and for Ontario. In sum, they will be demonstrating that their party caters to big business, especially big oil.

Who will pay for this? Once again, the Quebec nation. When the government refuses to help workers who have just lost their jobs, those people have no choice but to dip into their savings, and finally, to turn to social assistance as a last resort. Once again, Quebec is left to take care of these people who need help, although that money should come from the federal government. It is important to say so. Once again, the government is transferring one of its responsibilities. It is transferring this financial burden to the Quebec nation. We will continue to denounce this.

I will close by saying that the money that belongs to workers should be given back to the workers. Furthermore, the fact that this government refuses to help workers is undermining our economic recovery, because they are not injecting any money into the businesses that need it.

The Conservatives are giving everything to Ontario and nothing to Quebec. Most of the workers in the Quebec forestry industry have lost their jobs. This government has another opportunity to help businesses become viable and reduce the number of people who will lose their jobs. Once again, the government prefers to help wealthy people and to help Alberta by giving oil companies tax breaks, instead of helping unemployed workers who have paid their premiums and whose money is being stolen from them.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system).

I listened carefully to my hon. colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche who just spoke. I think that he has superbly summarized the very real difference for a seasonal worker who, because of where he lives or his line of work, has to make use of this employment insurance system.

I also listened carefully to what the member for Nepean—Carleton said, despite the fact that he had a very hard time with the word “exacerbate”. In fact, I would suggest that he listen to the recording; he will understand why some members in the back were chuckling. He was trying to entertain us with notes prepared by the Prime Minister's Office. This is quite natural, given that he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

In real life, people who are deprived of employment insurance visit our constituency offices. I find particularly contemptuous the way the member for Nepean—Carleton attacked the unemployed and the idea of providing them with more assistance. As the member for Madawaska—Restigouche just pointed out so aptly, this is money that is going straight back into the economy. Instead of playing favourites, the best way to jump-start the economy is to put money into people's pockets so that they can spend it in their local communities. The issue having been covered from other angles, I will give a concrete example, then provide an analysis of how this disastrous situation with the EI account came about.

This is the type of real life situation we encounter in our riding offices. A young teacher came to see us last summer. He was to teach a summer course but it was cancelled because not enough students enrolled where he was teaching. He had been a supply teacher during the year and accumulated 896 hours of employment. I remember the figure. The number of hours would normally have been enough; however, he actually needed 910 hours. That is the reality. It is difficult to accumulate 910 hours as a supply teacher. That is real life. During the summer he had to support himself and was struggling.

Let us now examine what the Conservatives have done with the employment insurance fund since coming to power and what the Liberals had started doing before them. This fund had accumulated $57 billion in premiums paid by each and every employee of all companies. It did not matter whether the company made money, broke even or lost money because every company and every employee had to contribute to the employment insurance fund. This money was set aside to help workers cope with the predictable cyclical nature of employment in Canada.

To create tax room and give the richest companies a gift, they plundered $57 billion from the employment insurance fund. Then they created $57 billion in tax room. In fact they gave $60 billion in gifts to companies. How did they do that? They transferred the moneys from the employment insurance fund to the government's general revenues. Some may say that it is not a big deal because it was always the government's money. However, it is a big deal because these moneys, as I just explained, were paid by all companies, even those not turning a profit or losing money.

Who got the $60 billion? By definition, if a company does not make a profit, it cannot benefit from tax breaks because it does not pay taxes.

So who got the money? Oil companies like EnCana in Alberta in the Prime Minister's backyard. EnCana received hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers' money. That money was paid directly to EnCana. The Conservatives raided the employment insurance fund and put the money into the government's general revenue fund. Then that cash was given to the richest companies, oil companies and banks. That is the Conservatives' fiscal policy. Never mind other issues, their jokes about a 45-day work year and so on, that is the sad truth about what the Conservatives did.

Then, because all that cash was given only to the companies that had made the most money, economic sectors that were already struggling, such as the forestry sector in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and New Brunswick and the manufacturing sector, got nothing.

Since the second world war, Canada has managed to build a balanced, stable economy. We are the second-largest country in the world, and we have barely 30 million people. It took a lot of doing to occupy all that land and make it productive. But it also took some planning and an understanding of resource sectors, such as forestry and mining. The same goes for the processing sector, as well as the service sector, which is providing more and more value to our economy.

Their policies have completely destabilized the balanced economy that Canada has enjoyed since the second world war because they have given all of the money to western Canada, specifically to the oil and banking industries. Well before the current crisis that hit Canada 13 or 14 months ago, during the first two and a half years of their minority government, the Conservatives caused the loss of over 350,000 jobs. Those job losses occurred mainly in Quebec and Ontario in the forestry and manufacturing sectors.

That is the Conservatives' sorry track record. Their economic approach is so ideological that it is practically dogmatic. Everything is fine as long as it is in their interest. The rest of the time, they say that people who want the government to play a role in the economy are out of line because they are trying to decide who wins and who loses.

In reality, they were the ones who determined the winners and losers in advance. They were the ones who decided that the big oil companies and the banks would be the winners. They took money from workers and businesses and transferred it to the winners they had already chosen. That is how their dogma. The hypocrisy here is that they lecture us about the free market, as though a true, clean, free market were the decider of all things. That is absolutely not the case.

They also intervene as much as anyone who came before them, except that they systematically intervene in favour of the rich. That is the difference between this side of the House and the Conservatives. When they have a choice to make, instead of deciding to help the least fortunate, to help those who need it most, their first instinct is to talk down to them, as the Prime Minister's parliamentary assistant just did, to make fun of the unemployed, not to help them, and to say everything is just fine. Everything is fine because they stole money that should have gone to the unemployed, and they gave it to their buddies, the oil companies and the banks.

That is the Conservative approach. By not taking into account the real environmental impact and environmental costs of the oil sands, they are making things worse. The Canadian dollar is on the rise, making it increasingly difficult to export our manufactured goods. The main reason for our high dollar—obviously we have become an oil powerhouse—is the arrival of petrodollars from the United States.

We export crude oil from the oil sands, and we also export jobs: 18,000 jobs were directly exported to the United States. We do not even do the pre-processing here. What is even worse is that with this year's $60 billion deficit, we are racking up debt for future generations instead of leaving them clean, renewable energies.

The Conservatives are passing down the opposite of sustainable development to future generations, and they will be very harshly judged. They love to get their pictures taken with future generations. It is time for them to start taking action for these future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy this afternoon to speak to Bill C-308, introduced by my colleague for Chambly—Borduas. This bill contains a host of measures for employment insurance. I will have the opportunity to talk about some of them.

First, I would like to talk about the provisions which would reduce the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work. I must say that it is completely absurd and distressing to hear the comments from the Conservative members, in particular the comments from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. When we hear their comments, whether they are quoting other people or not, we can see clearly that, in their minds, people who work 360 hours are people who do not deserve employment insurance benefits or people who do not want to work. Some Conservative members should visit rural areas where work is seasonal. Perhaps they would see that the situation is different from elsewhere in the country.

I hope I will not hear, in this House, any more such comments from Conservative members. I invite them to visit a riding such as mine and many other rural ridings, where seasonal work exists and where people have recourse to employment insurance, not because they voluntarily leave their job, but because there is no more work.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that this could increase the number of seasonal workers, but one must understand that, under the Employment Insurance Act, people who voluntarily leave their jobs are not eligible to receive employment insurance benefits. How is it possible that more people would receive benefits under a 360-hour rule? It is impossible. People who voluntarily leave their jobs are not eligible to receive employment insurance benefits. How could this measure worsen the employment insurance program as it is today?

We must also look a little further. A threshold of 360 hours was chosen because we want to make sure that workers will be eligible. At present, people from all over the country are not eligible for employment insurance because they do not have enough hours, specifically because of the economic crisis.

I would like to come back to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who was talking about the action plan. The action also serves to ensure that people who lose their jobs will have an income. But let us be clear: that income would be negligible. These people will not get rich with employment insurance.

We have seen some alarming statistics this week. People are losing their jobs, are no longer entitled to employment insurance or have never received it, even though they paid into it. They have to turn to income support. They are forced to do so, because the program is not what is needed in the current crisis.

Our position is very clear: the eligibility threshold should be 360 hours, as my colleague from Chambly—Borduas indicated in Bill C-308. The eligibility threshold should be 360 hours in order to deal with the economic crisis, to ensure that those workers who need it, the most vulnerable workers, can continue putting food on the table for their families. I do not think this is particularly difficult to understand. If we took away some members' salaries for a few weeks or a few months, perhaps they might realize that putting food on the table is a real challenge for some people. I would guess that this is not the case for the members of this House.

It appears that the members on the other side of the House believe that people just want to receive employment insurance and not work for the rest of the year. It is not their fault if they need employment insurance; they lost their jobs. They did not leave their jobs voluntarily. If that were the case, they would not be entitled to employment insurance. When I hear such nonsense in the House, I can only hope that one day, this will be clearer in the minds of many members.

Other factors are aggravating the situation.

The Conservative government seems to be saying that it is there to help. That is what it seems to be saying, but where is it helping? When it introduced Bill C-50 it talked about long-tenured workers. According to the Conservatives, seasonal workers are not long-tenured workers. But they are. They worked for 10, 15, 20, 30 or 35 years not only in the same industry, but in the same company. However, at some point during the year, they must cease working. It is not because they want to. It is not voluntary. They do not want to stop, but that is the reality. However, according to the Conservative plan, all seasonal workers, people who work in forestry, fishing, agriculture, road building, construction or tourism are not eligible for a single cent. There is absolutely nothing for them. That is why we wonder who will qualify for a single cent under this bill.

There is worse. A student who has completed his or her university degree and has worked for one or two years and who unfortunately loses his or her job will not be eligible for those additional weeks of benefits. A mother who decides to stay at home for a few years to take care of her children and who loses her job after having been back at work for a few years will not be eligible for any additional weeks of benefits, contrary to what the Conservatives would have us believe.

In the end, on EI issues, the Conservative program is certainly not a good one. We get the impression from them that people just do not want to work. But there is worse than that, a lot worse. They are proposing a new tax in the form of additional contributions. The Conservatives want to raise annual EI contributions by $600 for each and every worker. That is not money the workers will receive but extra contributions they will have to pay to be eligible to benefits. For businesses, it would be $840 per year.

The government talks about employment insurance, but it tries to take as much money as possible out of workers' pockets. That is what I call a tax on workers, or a tax on work. On the other hand, the government is making sure that workers cannot qualify for benefits after working 360 hours. I am convinced that the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas does not stop at this 360 hour threshold. I am sure he agrees with people working 450 hours, and if they have the opportunity to work 700 hours, he will be happy for them, just as I would be happy if people in my riding could work 700 hours. However, that is not always the case, and the situation is not the same everywhere in Canada. So, why not ensure that, in a time of economic crisis, people can qualify for financial assistance?

We also have to be realistic, whether or not we are going through an economic crisis. When someone has money in his pockets, he is going to spend it. He is going to pay for his basic needs, such as shelter, heat, transportation, gas and groceries. That is the reality. If a person does not have money, he cannot spend. And if that person does not qualify for EI benefits, he is not getting any money at all, and he simply cannot spend.

In the context of economic recovery, if someone has money, he will make sure that he can pay for his basic needs. So, making people eligible for EI benefits allows them to have some money. They are not going to invest that money. They are not going to follow the Prime Minister's advice, who once said that when the stock market is experiencing some turbulence and people are losing their pensions, that is the time to buy stocks. That is not the point. If people have money in their pockets, they will be able to buy groceries. If they have more money, they will be able to buy other things.

These are all basic needs, but the government must show compassion. The system must be a compassionate one, but members of this House must also show compassion. All MPs must realize the importance of maintaining the EI program, and of looking at eligibility, so that nobody is left out. In doing our job here, we are supposed to behave like good fathers. Therefore, let us make sure that we do not forget anyone. Let us make sure that we look forward and that we provide the necessary tools and incentives to workers and their families, so that they will feel their government is a good government. Right now, they cannot feel that way.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank the member for starting this debate.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to his bill, Bill C-308, and I thank the member for putting it forward.

As the House has heard, this bill seeks to make far-reaching amendments to the employment insurance program including reducing the entrance requirements to a minimum of 360 hours of work for regular benefits. Let us put this into clear language. What the member and his party propose is a 45-day work year. Our government believes that the amendments proposed by the bill would be nothing short of a policy catastrophe.

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick once said that history is a better guide than good intentions. While I have no doubt about the good intentions of the hon. member, history shows us the components of the bill are nothing more than a return to the Liberal policies of the 1970s. These policies would have the same catastrophic effects on our economy today as they did then. These are not just my words. In using the term “catastrophic effects” I am quoting David Gray, an economist with the University of Ottawa, who clearly articulated these points in early August. This is when the Liberals were still espousing the 45-day work year as a panacea for the entire EI system. This was before the Liberals walked out on the EI working group, abandoning Canada's unemployed.

One of the primary objectives of the EI program is to provide temporary income support to Canadians who are between jobs. In other words, the program is designed to help unemployed Canadians facing transition find employment and reintegrate into the workforce. Shortening the qualification period for EI would be tantamount to encouraging higher employment turnover of workers. The result of that kind of misguided policy would be a permanent rise in the unemployment rate.

Allow me to quote the Canadian Chamber of Commerce from its July 23 press release:

--moving to a national standard of 360 hours or 420 hours of work as the basis for qualifying for EI...would have substantial adverse impact on Canada's labour market -- it would discourage work, increase structural unemployment, exacerbate skills and labour shortages, and stifle productivity.

On August 1, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the 360-hour proposal was “just ludicrous”.

On the same day, Colin Busby, a policy analyst with the C.D. Howe Institute, said that lowering the entrance requirement “could create seasonal unemployment where maybe it didn't exist before. The consequence of lowering [the minimum threshold]...in places like Alberta from 700 hours in most places to all of a sudden 360...it's likely that you'll create more forms of seasonal unemployment over time”.

On June 3, in the National Post, Jack Mintz said that the flat 360-hour proposal, this 45-day work year proposal, is one of the worst ideas getting serious attention”.

The government is focused on taking prudent action to help Canadians and help them get back to work as soon as possible. Our economic action plan is working on three fronts by protecting jobs, providing income support and helping families and Canadians get the training they need so that they can get back to work as quickly as possible and on to a new career path.

The proposal put forward in Bill C-308 would truly hurt our ultimate goal of encouraging and supporting unemployed Canadians in their efforts to get back to work. The issue is not access but rather duration, duration of benefits and ensuring that people can transition effectively into the workforce.

Let us look at how this government has addressed the issue of access.

According to the results of a Statistics Canada employment insurance coverage survey, among the unemployed who have paid premiums and then been laid off or quit with cause, 82% were eligible to receive EI benefits in 2008. In fact, fewer than 10% of those who paid premiums and lost their jobs lacked the required hours to qualify. Furthermore, since last October, more than 82% of Canadian workers who qualify and are in need of accessing EI do qualify and are receiving the benefits.

As a result of the variable entrance requirement, from October 2008 to September 2009 access to EI became more responsive for workers in 38 of 58 regions across Canada. These include 15 in Ontario, all 6 in British Columbia and all 4 in Alberta. In light of these statistics, I trust the hon. member opposite will appreciate that the variable entrance requirement mechanism far better meets the needs of unemployed Canadians across the country than do changes proposed in his bill to accommodate a 45-day work year.

It is also very important to note that during this period where work has become more difficult to find during this global recession, the duration of benefits has increased. Our economic action plan is now temporarily providing an additional five weeks of EI right across the country.

In regions of high unemployment, we are also increasing the maximum number of weeks of benefits available under the EI program from 45 to 50 weeks. This means that claimants who previously had their benefits capped at 45 weeks can now receive an additional 5 weeks.

Our Conservative government has introduced more measures in Bill C-50 to ensure that Canadians who worked hard and paid into the EI system for years are now provided the help they need while they search for employment.

This bill will provide between 5 and 20 weeks of additional benefits to long-tenured workers should they need the extra help. This is an important step for Canadian workers who have worked hard and paid into the system all their lives, but because of the global recession and through no fault of their own have found it difficult to get back into the workforce. In these challenging economic times, these measures are giving hard-working Canadians who would otherwise have had to use up all of their benefits more time to find a job.

We have also said that we will be introducing further legislation to help the self-employed. All of these things are good for Canadians.

While the current economic environment is very challenging, under the prudent management of this Conservative government we are seeing progress. The economy will recover. This is why we have proposed that regular EI and long-tenured workers measures that enhance the system will be temporary. One of the reasons for these temporary proposals is that we were facing a labour shortage before this economic downturn and we will be facing the same challenges as the economy begins to recover.

That is why we acted early to help the hardest hit. That is why we expanded work sharing, which is now protecting over 164,000 jobs, making sure that shops do not lose their workers and workers do not lose their skills. This action by our government will help Canadian businesses gear back up when times are better.

To ensure that Canadian workers have the skills that our economy needs, we have increased training programs. We have helped people to transition back into the workforce with the best skills so that they can compete not just with their neighbours but with the whole world.

While I thank the member for putting forward this matter for debate, I respectfully suggest that it is a bad proposal and I will be voting against it. However, I will continue to support our economic action plan which helps people who are going through hard times get back on their feet.

When this global recession is over, Canada will emerge stronger than ever.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before resuming debate on this bill, I am prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on September 14 concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), standing in the name of the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this important matter, as well as the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas for his remarks concerning the bill.

In presenting his concerns with respect to the bill, the parliamentary secretary noted a number of its provisions which, in his view, infringed upon the financial prerogative of the Crown. Specifically, the bill reduces the qualifying period for benefits, permanently increases the benefit period, increases the benefit replacement rate to 60%, alters the benefit calculation formula, and increases the level of maximum yearly insurable earnings as well as introducing an indexing formula that would further increase benefits.

Furthermore, he pointed out that the bill would expand the employment insurance system to provide benefits for the self-employed.

In support of his contention that the bill requires a royal recommendation, the parliamentary secretary made reference to a Speaker's ruling concerning Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), presented during the 39th Parliament, found at page 4719 of the Debates of November 6, 2006. That bill was found to require a royal recommendation.

In his intervention, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas put forth arguments very similar to those put forth in the debate regarding Bill C-269, mainly that the funds in the employment insurance account are paid by workers and employers and therefore do not constitute government funds.

The Chair has carefully examined Bill C-308, and compared it with Bill C-269 from the 39th Parliament and has also reviewed the reasoning in the earlier Speaker’s ruling. The Chair notes that Bill C-269 contained a number of provisions either identical to or substantially the same as those in the bill in the present case.

In my view, it is clear that Bill C-308 alters the terms and conditions of the existing program under the Employment Insurance Act. As for whether the funds in question are government funds, I refer hon. members to the ruling of June 13, 2005 at page 6990 of the debates which stated that:

Sections 71 to 77 of the Employment Insurance Act establish the operation of the employment insurance account as part of the consolidated revenue fund. Amounts are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund and charged to the account--

It is evident that the bill seeks to increase employment insurance benefits, thus increasing the expenditures under that Act. As the House is aware, such provisions can only be put to the House for a final decision if they are accompanied by a royal recommendation as set out in Standing Order 79(1).

Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

Today's debate, however, is on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the current debate.