Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I have a comment on what the hon. member across the floor has just said.
I would like to comment on employment insurance and women. The bill before the House this afternoon is one which eliminates the 15 hour-week gimmick. In order to avoid having to contribute to unemployment insurance, certain employers keep their part time employees under 15 hours a week.
The new system, based on hours worked, will eliminate that invisible limit. In the new system as well, employers will have fewer reasons to limit their part time workers' hours, because all hours worked will be insurable under the system.
It must be remembered also that women make up the bulk of such workers, 69 per cent in fact. When it comes to women and employment insurance, we wanted to extend the protection offered to all part time workers. It must also be kept in mind that of the 270,000 women working part time in Canada, only 204,000 will be entitled to a refund of their contributions.
It is also worth mentioning that many women in this country hold down more than one job. They do so simply because they are not eligible for employment insurance, since they work fewer than 15 hours a week.
Another important point is that the monies paid out in employment insurance support measures will assist more than 180,000 women here in this country to find work.
My question is as follows. The hon. member opposite has made a comment about this bill being regressive in nature, and about its
creating joblessness. Does he not recognize that this bill represents a certain equity toward women?