Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll begin with my conclusion now. Parliament should pass Bill C-50 to provide additional weeks of employment insurance benefits to thousands of long-tenured workers who will otherwise run out of benefits.
Having said that, I'd like to elaborate further on the strengths and weaknesses of this bill as well as needed employment insurance reforms beyond this proposal.
The main strength of the bill is that it would provide a projected billion dollars of further EI benefits to Canadian workers laid off through no fault of their own. We in the labour movement strongly believe that much more is needed, but I recognize that a billion dollars is quite significant.
As one reference point, I know that the parliamentary budget officer estimates that temporarily enacting a national entrance requirement of 360 hours would cost approximately a billion dollars.
So Bill C-50 is roughly comparable to that proposal in terms of the total amount of additional assistance provided.
Another positive aspect of the bill is that it's the first time since the January budget that the government has recognized the need to improve employment insurance in response to the rapid deterioration of Canada's labour market. Since this bill was introduced there have been murmurs of providing EI benefits for parental purposes to self-employed workers; therefore, I am cautiously optimistic that this bill could foreshadow further important improvements to employment insurance.
Conversely, I hope the government will not take the passage of this bill as an indication that the employment insurance file is closed.
A major limitation of Bill C-50 is the fact that the proposed benefit extension would apply only to claims established since January 4. As members of this committee will know, employment insurance claims ordinarily expire after 52 weeks. Many claims established in late 2008 have not yet expired, and I see no reason to exclude these remaining claims from the proposed benefit extension.
In order to shed more light on this difficulty, I looked at the number of claims accepted in each Canadian province before and after January 4. I would draw your attention to this statistical table that I have circulated. I should emphasize that this is not restricted to long-tenured workers, but I believe it nevertheless provides an indication of the proportion of claims likely to be excluded from the benefit extension.
Nationally, for every three claims established during the period covered by the benefit extension, there was one claim established in the period that will be excluded from the extension. However, I would also note that there are some important regional variations. For example in Canada's island provinces, for every three claims established during the period covered by the bill, there were two claims established in the period excluded from the bill.
Once again, it's just not apparent what the reasoning is for excluding these claims established near the end of 2008 that have not yet expired. That said, it is worth noting that proportionally more of those claims established in 2008 would already have been exhausted and could not have been eligible for a benefit extension in any case.
The second major weakness with the bill is the exclusion of workers who have used 36 or more weeks of EI benefits over the five years preceding their current claim. This provision is reminiscent of the federal government's attempt to impose experience rating on the EI program during the 1990s. Forestry and other hard-hit sectors suffered frequent layoffs even before the current economic crisis. Over the past five years Canadian employers have eliminated half a million manufacturing jobs; therefore, many individuals, through no fault of their own, have already had to use 36 or more weeks of EI benefits.
A point I would emphasize is that individuals who quit their jobs voluntarily or are fired with cause are already denied EI benefits. However, previous involuntary layoffs have caused some long-tenured workers to use 36 or more benefit weeks. If such workers have had the misfortune of being laid off again, why are they any less deserving of extended EI benefits? Once again, I see no good reason for this exclusion from the bill.
Beyond these specific limitations, though, there are many areas of EI reform that this bill simply doesn't touch. Fewer than half of officially unemployed Canadian workers receive EI benefits at all. This fraction should be raised, and it could be raised by making more benefits accessible through a lower entrance requirement for employment insurance.
I recognize that the government has not been particularly keen on that particular reform proposal, so I'm going to identify four other options that could enhance EI.
The first would be to end the clawback of severance benefits against EI benefits. I think this proposal is especially relevant, because it was also recommended by the task force on older workers that inspired Bill C-50.
Second, the government could extend the duration of benefits for a broader range of workers who meet the qualifications for EI but who may not meet the criteria set out in this particular bill.
Third, the government should increase the level of EI benefits. Currently EI replaces just over half of previous insurable earnings--55%, to be precise--but that is capped at only $450 per week. Clearly it makes sense to increase the level of EI benefits.
Fourth, and finally, the two-week waiting period to receive EI benefits should be removed. I would draw your attention to this letter that I've circulated, which notes that, simply to conform with International Labour Organization standards, Canada should be maintaining a waiting period, if any, of no longer than one week.
In closing, I would say that Bill C-50 is an important step forward, but many further steps are urgently needed.
Thanks very much for your time.