Evidence of meeting #61 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was insurance.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 8, we are considering Bill C-269, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system).
Today, we'll be starting with Bill C-269, followed by Bill C-278, and we're going to go clause by clause. We are going to start with clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The question I have for the committee is, can we look at clauses 1 to 4, or are we looking at them all individually?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Do we have any issues with that? Is taking clauses 1 to 4 okay?
For clauses 1 to 4, there are no amendments right now.
(Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 5)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you very much.
We have Liberal amendment L-1.
Mr. Savage, would you like to read that to us and explain what it is? That would be great.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Yes. It's that Bill C-269 in clause 5 be amended by replacing lines 7 to 13 on page 3 with the following. Then it goes on to say that:
5.(1) The table to subsection 7(2) of the Act
—that is, the Employment Insurance Act—
is replaced by the following:
and it puts forward a table of qualifying period requirements.
Shall I do part two of that at the same time?
Liberal
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
The second part of it is that:
(2) Paragraph 7(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) has had 840 or more hours of insurable employment in their qualifying period.
Perhaps I can explain that, Mr. Chair.
I suspect that Mr. Lessard and Mr. Godin are experts in the Employment Insurance Act. I was not. It is a long and complex act. What we're suggesting and what these amendments are designed to do, very simply, in opposition to the bill's requirement of a flat amount of required hours to qualify for EI, at 360 hours across the board, is to maintain the regional rates of unemployment criteria but drop every level by 70 hours, so that there would be a low of 350 hours in the highest unemployment areas, where the problem is the most significant for people looking for work, going up to 630 hours required in the lowest unemployment areas. That's the first part of this. That table is a reflection of the changes this would entail.
In the act now, you'll see that at 6% and under, 700 hours are required. In this one we're suggesting 630, and it's 70 hours across the board throughout the table. That's one change.
The second change reflects the fact that in the bill new entrants are not distinguished from re-entrants. We think there's a very valid reason for re-entrants to be treated separately. Seasonal employment is a fact of life in many parts of Canada. People shouldn't be penalized because they live in an area of seasonal employment or high unemployment. We think we should leave a higher requirement for first-time entrants, but drop it by 70 hours as well. It was 910 hours, and we're proposing that we drop it to 840 hours.
This would do three things. One, it would reinstate the distinction between new entrants and re-entrants; second, it would drop the hours required for new entrants from 910 to 840 hours; and third, it would drop by 70 hours across the board the regional rates of unemployment required to qualify for EI.
Very simple.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
That's the motion.
Are there any points of discussion on this?
Mr. Lessard.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by saying that once again, the interpreters are experiencing problems because some people have their Blackberries on. I point it out for their sake and for our sake.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chairman, on the Liberals' motion, we strongly support what we have said. The 360-hour rule should stand, given the government's obligations towards workers. However, given the circumstances and given the fact that the Liberals are proposing an amendment that leads us to believe that they will vote with us, in order that we be able to at least improve a clause dealing with a measure that we feel is only a temporary solution to what needs to be fixed in the employment insurance regime, the Liberals' motion should be considered.
The motion applies and our distinguished colleague can enlighten me on that. The range of hours determining eligibility currently extends from 420 to 910, and this would reduce it by 70 hours at each stage. Four hundred and twenty hours would go down to 350 hours and new entrants would be at a 840 hours. We agree to this amendment on those conditions.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Merci, Monsieur Lessard.
You're correct in your understanding that this would reduce it by 70 hours across the board and require the new entrants to be at 840 hours.
It is our intention to support everything else in this bill, based upon your support of these amendments.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
If there's no more discussion, then all those....
Sorry. Mr. Godin.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I simply have something to put on the record.
I'm not particularly happy with this grid, but given that the Liberal Party is supporting this—and I hope that the Conservative Party will also support it—I hope that it will at least make a greater number of workers eligible for employment insurance.
In the past, 150 hours were required to be eligible for employment insurance; that number then swung the other way completely. I myself tabled a bill, which is still the subject of debate in the House of Commons. That bill suggests 360 hours and the 12 best weeks. I have always said I would vote for positive measures and against negative measures. I do not feel that this motion is negative. I will say once again that it does not go far enough, but I am willing to support it.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I appreciate Mr. Godin's comments. I understand his view.
It is through the efforts and work of the members of our caucus—people such as Pablo Rodriguez, J.C. D'Amours, Rodger Cuzner, Dominic LeBlanc, Robert Thibault, and many others—that we have arrived at what we think is a reasonable compromise.
We know it doesn't go as far as some would like, but we think it provides a good balance to the system.
After putting the EI system back on a solid footing in the 1990s, it is time to say that we have workers, largely in areas of high unemployment, who through no fault of their own are out of work, and we shouldn't penalize them for that.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Mr. Savage.
If there's no more further discussion, the question is, shall amendment L-1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
My next question is, can I go from clause 6 all the way to clause 19, or do we need to have some discussion? If that's okay, I will ask the question.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
The amendment is on pages 8 and 9 of the schedule. I don't have the schedule in front of me. It is on pages 8 and 9. That is the amendment for the schedule, and there is a clause 19 on page 6. The question still goes back--
