Debates of Sept. 21st, 2006

Emergency Management Act

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied with the current system.

Compensation is first a provincial responsibility, and the federal government gets involved depending on the seriousness of the disaster and the amount of expenses. I do not remember the exact numbers, but I believe that, if the expenses are more than $1 per person, the federal government pays 20%. If they are more than $2 per person in that province, the federal government pays 30%. If they are more than $3, it pays 50%. I think that, from $4 or $5, the federal government pays 100%.

All in all, the federal government is a great insurer of the provinces. This formula makes it possible to adjust compensation depending on the seriousness of the disaster and the population of the province. I think that this is a good system.

The member's initial remarks bring me to another point. Yes, we thought about this. Following these disasters, we realized that, in the past, the cabinet was always implementing special measures to compensate victims. Why not have a system set down in law? That is why, at the end of the act, there is a whole chapter that provides for financial aid. When disasters occur and people must leave their home and find a place to live, they want to immediately receive the money they need to find a home and feed themselves. Then, when they file claims for lost property or lost work, there are criteria in the act or the regulations, and we can compensate them quickly.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning the Constitution for the member of the Bloc Québécois.

He said that the Government of Canada did not respect the Constitution of Canada because it was prepared to introduce a law on a matter that fell under the responsibility of the province of Quebec.

The responsibility for emergencies in Canada is clearly a responsibility of the Government of Canada. Courts over the years, the judicial committee of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, have consistently ruled that the interpretation of peace, order and good government also constitutes an emergency doctrine that allows the Government of Canada to have responsibility for emergencies, and that is precisely what this bill would do.

Bill C-12 is entitled “An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts”. Why does the hon. member think that it is not the responsibility of this Parliament to ensure emergency management for all Canadians?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for a brief response.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am responding, frankly, because it is the least effective solution. In most emergencies, the most effective solutions are to be found at the local level. For my own part, I do not know where in the Constitution there is a provision to supply aid in the event of an emergency. This is a responsibility that governments have gradually assumed since 1867 and, in truth, assistance in terms of intervening in the case of an emergency is incidental to the powers dealing with the movement or general welfare of the population, or any other subject.

Perhaps the famous formula that the member referred to at the beginning, for the “peace, order and good government of Canada” would apply, but that is rather through its relationship to social welfare, which is not mentioned but which falls into the jurisdiction of the provinces.

In any case, I recognize that the federal government has a role to play, but that role is not to establish the rules for everyone. That is best done at the local level. This bill does not establish very much except for emergency plans that would originate with federal ministers for their government, but one would say that they want to manage the training of front-line interveners, that they want—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here and to speak on the subject of Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts.

At the outset of my 20 minute presentation, I certainly want to say that of course we support this bill. It is a bill that we had presented to Parliament previously. There are some changes, but we certainly welcome the reintroduction of the emergency management bill tabled by our government in November 2005.

That bill fulfilled a promise we made in our national security policy in April 2004. It built on our excellent record on security since 9/11, a record of investing over $9.5 billion to strengthen national security, improve emergency preparedness, contribute to international security, create the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and establish the national 24-7 Government Operations Centre to coordinate federal emergency responses.

People ask us why we are making a change in emergency response. We are in a different world. The world is changing. In the past, species that did not learn to adapt as the world changed became extinct. The world has changed dramatically since 9/11. Who would have expected a 9/11 type of incident and the type of emergency preparedness we now have to put in place to deal with those types of problems?

It reminds me of the American revolution when the strong British had their formula and the American revolutionaries did something absolutely new when they wore no uniforms and shot from the ditches. It was unexpected and the British were not prepared for it. That same type of unexpected strategy occurred on September 11 and we need new methods of emergency response to prevent such things.

Another example, of course, is the recent shooting in Montreal. Once again, thank goodness the Montreal police have realized that it is a new world and have changed their previous procedures. They did not wait outside for the SWAT team, as previous procedures had mandated. They learned by experience. They updated their procedures, went in right away and probably saved a large number of people who would not otherwise have been saved.

Of course it is a new world also because of changes made by mankind that are related to climate. Global warming of course has had dramatic and some very tragic effects related to weather patterns. Hurricanes and droughts have had devastating effects on people and families in a new world that we could never have thought of.

A member from the NDP recently mentioned a good example: the ice storm. That was not simply a two or three week event. I was in Quebec recently and felt how deeply that event from long ago had scarred the people. It was so traumatic in their lives. They will never forget that. It was not simply an overnight occurrence, a freak weather accident that had no longstanding effect. We need to develop modern methods to react quickly to such events.

There are of course natural disasters that we could not have predicted in the past. They are not changes, but they are things that we now are aware of, such as incoming meteors and earthquakes that we can now sense with certain machinery. Now we can be prepared for them and prevent much loss of life, loss of property and tragedy, if we have new reactions and new procedures based on modern systems.

There is also the whole area of disease. Some members have mentioned during the debate that this whole area is totally different from the way it was in the past. If Marco Polo had acquired some disease on his first trip to the Orient, by the time he got back either he or the disease would have died. There would not have been a quick transmission. Now people are flying all over the world every day and we get things like SARS and other epidemics that could be vast tragedies in the world, regardless of a border between Canada and the United States or in Europe or wherever.

New occasions teach new duties. We have to constantly modernize our emergency response procedures and, therefore, legislation and resources.

I wish to talk a bit about clause 5. The clause talks about developing joint plans with the United States and providing assistance in response to those plans. I think everyone would agree that this make obvious sense.

It is expected that an earthquake will strike either Vancouver or Seattle at some time in the future, on the Pacific rim of fire where earthquakes are more prevalent. There are many emergency responders very close by to whichever city would need response from another country. They could save lives, prevent tragedies and reduce suffering immensely. It would make no sense at all not to allow those people to help out in such a huge catastrophe. That is one of the provisions in clause 5.

Of course the same is true about Ontario, New York and Buffalo. There are huge populations right across our border with the United States. We would want to use all the emergency response and planning and make all the resources available to them to prevent suffering and the loss of human life and to deal with the situation.

I want to talk for a few minutes about a technical omission in the bill. It is related to the territories. Unfortunately, this is the fourth bill in a row for which I have had to stand up and give this speech. I have no idea why the Conservative government constantly wants to leave the territories out of Canada.

First of all, let me read for members the definition of “provincial emergency”, because I thought the government could have included the territories with the provinces. It is as follows:

“provincial emergency” means an emergency occurring in a province if the province or a local authority in the province has the primary responsibility for dealing with the emergency.

In the northern half of Canada, do we not have emergencies where the territorial governments have these same responsibilities? In Yukon, we have an area where a glacier periodically has closed off a river and dammed it up. Not that many decades ago, because of that, one of our major communities was 100 feet underwater. There is nothing to say that this type of occurrence could not happen again.

Also, we have an earthquake seismograph in the town of Haines Junction in a national park. Virtually every week there is seismic activity. Yukon is not that far from the Pacific rim of fire.

Yukon also has huge tracts of forests infested with the spruce beetle. Unfortunately, these forests are right beside the same town that could be underwater, but there could be huge forest fires with devastating effects.

Once again I note that there are all sorts of emergencies that could occur in the territories. The territories should be given the same respect and opportunities as the provinces. In fact, this could even be more serious for us in the sense that Yukon has fewer responders, fewer people and farther to go. It is even more difficult in some ways to deal with those emergencies although of course there are fewer people to deal with and solve the problem for.

I will move on to clause 3, which states:

among government institutions and in cooperation with the provinces and other entities.

Hopefully there will also be cooperation with the territories; we would not have cooperation with the territorial governments and an emergency response team with the territorial government. I know the bureaucrats in Yukon government. I have a very good relationship with their emergency response organizations. I am sure they would appreciate the same level of respect from the rest of Parliament.

I will now go to paragraph 4(1)(f), which states:

—and supporting the emergency management activities of the provinces—and through the provinces, those of local authorities;....

Once again, hopefully we would support the activities of the territories and, of course, the municipalities in the territories are created by the territorial governments, just like provincial governments. Therefore their local authorities would have a parallel acceptance.

Paragraph (g) reads:

establishing arrangements with each province whereby any consultation with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council....

Once again, it should be with any province or territory. We would have to change the words “Lieutenant-Governor in Council” to commissioner because the equal position in the territories is commissioner.

Paragraph (h) reads:

coordinating the provision of assistance to a province in respect of a provincial emergency, other than the provision of financial assistance....

Once again, there are territorial emergencies and they have departments to cover emergencies. Therefore, we want that to say “provincial and territorial”. I can see no reason why the territorial governments would not be covered since they have the same responsibility for the northern half of Canada.

Paragraph (i) reads:

providing assistance other than financial assistance to a province if the province requests it;

Hopefully, the territories that probably have even less tax raising powers and revenue raising ability would be able to request financial assistance from the federal government over and above the provinces.

Let us go to paragraph (j).

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to apologize to the hon. member for Yukon. I am seeking unanimous consent to revert back to presenting reports from committees and motions for the purpose of dealing with the 14th report of the procedure and House affairs committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to revert to presenting reports from committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding a change to the Standing Orders. If the House gives its consent, I move that the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House this day be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

(Motion agreed to)

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Employment Insurance Act

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

moved that Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

She said, Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to debate Bill C-269, a bill that I introduced in this House in May of this year.

The purpose of this bill is to improve the present employment insurance system, which the Conservative and Liberal governments have gradually distorted into a complex, unfair program that bears increasingly little resemblance to an insurance plan.

Enacting this bill will provide a lifeline for all workers in Quebec and Canada. That is why the government must have the political will to update the system before it does any more damage. It has ample resources to do this.

We should recall that, until 1990, the Canadian government contributed to the unemployment insurance fund. In 1990, however, Brian Mulroney's Conservative government destroyed that equilibrium by terminating the federal government’s contribution to the fund, leaving the entire funding of it to employers and workers. The withdrawal of federal funding created a major deficit in the fund at that time.

The government then tried to solve the problem by slashing the coverage that the system provided, cutting the benefits paid to unemployed workers and tightening the eligibility rules for workers. The effect of this was to reduce the number of people covered by the system by half between 1989 and 1997 and to create enormous surpluses in the fund. The federal government turned it into a slush fund that has accumulated over $48 billion dollars to date on the backs of workers and employers.

For more than 15 years, workers and employers have been the only contributors to the fund, and every year, the surpluses in the fund are swallowed up by a federal machine whose appetite knows no bounds.

In its present form, the employment insurance system is no longer a worker assistance program, it is a disguised tax, a tax picked from the pockets of the workers and employers of Quebec and Canada. The system was initially supposed to assist the workers who paid the premiums. It was an insurance policy, just like fire insurance, theft insurance, disability insurance.

The regions are suffering economically from plant closings and mass layoffs. Imagine what the effect on them will be when the employees who are laid off are also receiving no assistance from the system.

Add to that the millions of dollars in premiums paid by employers and employees. That is money Ottawa removes from the regions. We can understand the dire economic situation they are in at this time.

The government, be it Liberal or Conservative, manages the EI fund money as though it were its own. Do we need to remind that the surplus money comes from cuts made by the federal government?

Today, about 40% of people who lose their jobs manage to qualify for EI. That is 4 workers out of 10. The people the most affected by the federal government's reforms are the women, the young and the seasonal workers. Of course, they are the same persons who are the most dependent on the program because they occupy precarious and unstable jobs.

It is a shame. Older and seasonal workers, women and young workers who lose their jobs have contributed to the fund but will never receive one penny from it.

While workers get poorer because they do not have access to EI benefits, their families and their regions also get poorer. Depriving the unemployed workers of benefits for which they paid premiums during many years is also depriving the regions of Quebec and Canada of several million dollars.

In her November 2005 report, the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, said there was an accumulated surplus of more that $48 billion. She also declared that the federal government had the obligation to respect the Employment Insurance Act and added that:

For the past six years, we have drawn Parliament's attention to our concerns about the government's compliance with the intent of the Employment Insurance Act, with respect to the setting of employment insurance premium rates and its impact on the size and growth of the accumulated surplus in the Employment Insurance Account. The accumulated surplus in the Account increased by an additional $2 billion in 2004–05 to reach $48 billion by the end of March 2005.

What is the government doing to respect this law and end the suffering afflicting thousands of workers in the regions?

Will the Conservatives care about redressing the injustice suffered at present by the workers, or will they also be tempted to help themselves to the fund as the Liberals did before them?

Will they put their American priorities ahead of their social responsibilities?

During the last election campaign, the Conservatives made a commitment to put in place an independent employment insurance program and to create an autonomous fund administered by employees and employers.

The House will recall that in the past the Conservatives agreed that any surpluses from the plan should be used to increase benefits and that the plan should be better adapted to the needs of Canadian workers.

They also supported the recommendations of the human resources committee whereby the plan would be reserved for the sole benefit of workers.

So, if they are consistent and true to their promises, they will support the Bloc Québécois’ bill, which everyone has been calling for for a long time.

Quebeckers and Canadians have the same expectations as far as the Liberals are concerned. If one day they hope to resume power, they should prove they are worthy of it and that they are listening to the people.

Perhaps the fact of finding themselves in the opposition will make them more attentive to the hardship faced by workers in their ridings.

With my colleague fromChambly—Borduas and the human resources and social development critic for the Bloc Québécois, I am visiting several regions in Quebec to hear, understand and better grasp the daily realities being experienced by those who have been hard hit by the present system.

I am talking obviously about the areas of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Mauricie, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Côte-Nord, Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Bas-Saint-Laurent and Laurentides.

Some citizens from Mont-Laurier, in my riding, told me that, because they had to wait so long between the time they applied for benefits and the time they received their first cheque, they had to go to food banks or even sell some of their belongings in order to pay their regular expenses, such as rent, groceries and hydro bills.

A Côte-Nord agency said that from 70 to 75% of seasonal workers are women and that most of them have a hard time qualifying for benefits.

Seasonal workers, part-time workers, casual workers, on-call workers and contract workers are increasing in numbers, especially among young people and women.

All these categories of workers have increasing difficulty accumulating the hours needed to meet employment Insurance requirements.

Others told us about the fact that some voluntary departures are actually the result of employer harassment and that these people are not only psychologically shaken but face a loss of income as well.

In the Saguenay, all who spoke to us wanted the older workers assistance program back.

They said as well that in some parts of their region, it is impossible for people to accumulate more than 360 hours because of all the seasonal jobs in agriculture, forestry and tourism.

The system we had in the 1990s is no longer suited to today’s realities. That is why reforms are needed to help working people. It is time to give contributors what is due to them and stop looting the fund.

Contrary to what we might think, the statistics show that the unemployment rate has gone down since 1996, but in actual fact, it is the number of eligible claimants that has gone down.

The eligibility requirements are so strict that ever fewer workers qualify, and that translates inevitably into a reduction in the unemployment rate.

The rising number of independent and part-time workers also tends to falsify the results.

In my riding of Laurentides—Labelle, the economy is based largely on the forest industry, tourism and agri-food.

In the regional municipality of Antoine-Labelle alone, 62% of the people in the primary sector work fewer than 49 weeks a year, in comparison with 41% in Quebec as a whole.

The employee turnover rate is especially high, largely because the jobs are unstable and seasonal.

Another reality that must be factored in is the exodus of young people. Too often they must leave their home regions in order to pursue their education in large centres, and not many decide to return. The Bloc Québécois has always made employment insurance reform one of its priorities. Bill C-269 is intended to restore some fairness for workers in the way employment insurance benefits are delivered.

This bill aims in particular to:

reduce the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours regardless of the regional unemployment rate—this will eliminate the inequities between regions on the basis of their unemployment rates;

increase the benefit period from 45 to 50 weeks—in this way, we will be able to limit the effects of the gap or black hole, which currently leaves the unemployed suffering for sometimes as long as 10 weeks;

increase the rate of weekly benefits to 60% of insurable earnings rather than 55% as is currently the case—unstable jobs are generally the least well paid and these changes would provide claimants with a bare minimum;

eliminate the waiting period between the time when people lose their jobs and apply for benefits and the time when they receive their first cheques—workers should not be penalized for losing their jobs and their financial obligations continue, even if the money is late arriving;

eliminate the distinction between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force—this practice is totally discriminatory, especially against young people and women whose work situation is typically less stable;

eliminate the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm’s length—it is not up to workers to prove their good faith when they lose their jobs, but it is up to the system to investigate if there is any doubt;

increase the maximum yearly insurable earnings from $39,000 to $41,500 and introduce an indexing formula—the current contribution formula is actually a regressive tax that affects low-income earners the most. It is worth noting that the maximum was once $43,000;

calculate benefits based on the 12 best weeks so as not to penalize seasonal workers who sometimes work small weeks; and finally,

extend program coverage to the growing number of self-employed workers in the labour market who have no coverage should they become unemployed.

In closing, I would like to remind the House that workers' and employer's groups, the Auditor General of Canada and the Bloc Québécois, and now even the UN, have criticized the federal government and its employment insurance program.

In an article that appeared in La Presse on May 23, it was reported that the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

recommends that the State party reassess the Employment Insurance scheme with a view to providing greater access and improved benefit levels to all unemployed workers.

I feel I must emphasize the words "providing greater access", "improved benefit levels" and "all unemployed workers".

In closing, I would like to challenge the Conservative and Liberal members of this House to tell me in all sincerity that there is neither unemployment nor poverty in their ridings.

Can they truly say they do not believe there is any need for Canada to have an employment insurance program worthy of their fellow citizens, workers and employers?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Laurentides—Labelle and I would like to thank her for her comments.

Before asking my question, I would like this House to be aware that the former government, the Liberal government, had introduced the same bill in this House during the last Parliament.

The previous Liberal government opposed this bill as well and I would like to remind all members in the House of that opposition. The parliamentary secretary to the minister of human resources and skills development in the previous Liberal government said that the virtually identical bill that was presented in that Parliament had rash, badly thought out changes and would create a situation which would “lead to the encouragement of people to become dependent on EI benefits” and put the emphasis on “unemployment rather than employment, and in some cases actually acting as a disincentive to work”.

My question for the member from the Bloc is whether or not she thinks the Liberals will continue to show their opposition to this bill in front of the House or whether she thinks they will change their position and join her in supporting her private member's bill?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Conservative member for his question. It is quite pertinent. I would also ask the Conservative members if they support Bill C-269.

Not only is this the reality in Quebec, but it is representative of the experience of workers throughout Canada.

My colleague, who sits on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, carried out consultations across the country. He heard from all groups and associations that advocate for and support workers, the unions and the Canadian Labour Congress. They all agree that the current Employment Insurance Act absolutely must be overhauled.

Whether Liberal or Conservative, we must concern ourselves with the fate of our workers in our ridings.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank the hon. member for bringing this bill forward. It is about time we had a fulsome discussion. The Liberal position will be that we want this bill to go to committee, so that we can get the answers to all of the questions raised by the member.

My question for the member is something she may have considered, but in my own constituency we have often come across cases where people have long term disabilities and cannot get Canada pension plan disability benefits. Their employment insurance benefits run out quickly but they still have a long term problem.

Has she also considered, in terms of potential amendments to the bill, whether we should also be dealing with those people who fall through the cracks between the period of availability of EI benefits and those that would be available under CPP?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for his question, which I did not really understand.

Was this about handicapped persons who could not qualify for the program or about the spring gap? I would like to give him an answer, but I do not understand his question.

In any case, I will add that if he so desires, he can introduce a bill including what he said. It is up to him. We would give it consideration. However, the content of Bill C-269 did not appear out of nowhere. The bill really reflects the concerns mentioned by the workers of Quebec and Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, for a quick question.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Bloc Québécois member whether she thinks the hon. member for Mississauga South is not being hypocritical. This afternoon he stood in this House and said that he would support the Conservative position on the employment insurance bill such that it should not be put to a vote in the House of Commons. It was quite clear. The Liberals did the same thing when a bill had been presented under the other government.

Today the Liberals rose in the House to say that this should not be put to a vote. If we cannot vote, the bill will not go anywhere. This shows once again that the Conservatives and the Liberals are one and the same. They are there to protect major employers and their friends and not the workers who really need this money to which they are entitled. They are the ones who have paid employment insurance premiums, as have the employers. It is not the government's money. It belongs to the families, the workers who paid premiums in case they lost their job.

I would add that if Alberta did not have oil wells they might need employment insurance just as much as Quebec or the Atlantic provinces do.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle has the floor for a very brief response.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

I can tell my friend and colleague from the NDP that I share his feeling. I would go further on the subject of their hypocrisy and perhaps ask the Liberals who used to form the government: what they did with the surpluses accumulated in the employment insurance fund.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the employment insurance program and examine the issues raised by the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

Before commencing, however, I would like to point out that many issues raised in Bill C-269 were raised in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities report, for which the government will table its response in the very near future.

The government is committed to ensuring that its programs respond to the realities of the Canadian labour market. In this regard, it is important that program changes, including those to the EI program, be founded on sound analysis of evidence.

Equally important, is that careful consideration be given to labour market impacts and the costs of individual measures.

To inform decision making on any potential EI changes, the government draws upon extensive monitoring, assessment and evaluation of the program.

In addition, EI pilot projects can be utilized to assess the labour market impacts of new approaches before permanent changes are considered. Currently, a number of pilot projects are in progress testing the efficiency of measures to address many of the issues referenced in Bill C-269.

Bill C-269 proposes fundamental changes to the Employment Insurance Act, changes so fundamental that they would represent a substantial program expansion, requiring considerable preparatory work and sound analysis. Before contemplating such extensive measures, it is important that we examine each of these proposals individually and, most important, look at their overall impact.

Bill C-269 would reduce the number of hours required to qualify for EI to a flat 360 hours of work, regardless of the regional unemployment rate.

The EI program's variable entrance requirement is designed to help provide adequate program access across the country and is adjusted monthly to reflect unemployment rates by region. The higher the unemployment rate is in a particular region, the more difficult it is to obtain work and to accumulate the necessary hours to qualify for EI.

Evidence indicates that the variable entrance requirement, as compared with a fixed entrance requirement, as proposed in this bill, has played an important role in equalizing the percentage of individuals who meet EI entrance requirements across unemployment rates.

While I would not presume to speculate on the reasoning behind the proposed fixed entrance requirement, some have argued that the qualifying period should be reduced because they claim that fewer than 45% of unemployed receive EI benefits in some parts of Canada.

This is a misleading way to look at the statistic and is a flawed measure of EI access across Canada, for this statistic includes those who have not contributed to the EI program by paying premiums, such as individuals who have never worked or who are self-employed.

For the record, 80% of unemployed people who pay into EI and who become unemployed, through no fault of their own, are eligible to receive EI benefits.

It is important also to remind the House why there is a 910 hour entrance requirement for new labour market entrants and those re-entering the workforce after an extended absence from the workplace.

The objectives of these measures are to ensure that those accessing insurance based income support have demonstrated significant workforce attachment as to prevent a cycle of reliance on EI while also strengthening the relationship between hours of work and benefit entitlement. I would note that this requirement does not apply if an individual has worked at least 490 hours in the year prior to the qualifying period of this claim.

According to successive monitoring and assessment reports, the objects of this policy are being achieved as these reports suggest that the current entrance provisions are encouraging workforce attachment.

Nevertheless, in areas of high unemployment, a pilot project was initiated to test the labour market impacts of reducing the hours of work new entrants and re-entrants required to qualify for EI benefits from 910 to 840 when linked with employment programs.

With respect to the bill's proposal to substantially increase EI benefit entitlements, overall evidence continues to indicate that the duration of EI benefits is sufficient for the majority of claimants. On average, individuals use less than two-thirds of their EI entitlement before finding employment. Even more telling, only a small percentage of claimants entitled to 45 weeks of benefits use all the weeks available to them.

Observers have noted, however, that certain individuals in seasonal industries may face an income gap when their EI claim runs out prior to returning to their seasonal job. Consequently, this past June our new government announced the extended EI benefits pilot project. The pilot project provides access to five additional weeks of benefits to EI claimants in high unemployment regions, up to a maximum of 45 weeks. The pilot project will test whether providing additional benefits has adverse labour market effects and whether it effectively addresses their income gap.

Bill C-269 also proposes to increase benefit levels by raising the maximum insurable earnings, or MIE. In 2001, it was determined that the annual MIE would be frozen at $39,000 until the average industrial wage increased to an equivalent level. The impetus of this decision was the fact that the MIE was substantially higher than the average industrial wage and, as such, could act as a disincentive to work. The same rational applies today.

The bill before us today also proposes raising benefit rates from 55% to 60% of average weekly insurable earnings. The current 55% EI benefit rate is designed to strike a balance between providing adequate temporary income while maintaining work incentives. Evidence indicates that the current benefit rates meet the needs of unemployed workers and in fact only 12% of those who become unemployed show a drop in household spending one year after a job separation.

Bill C-269 also proposes to eliminate the two week waiting period. The waiting period of the co-insurance feature of EI is similar to the deductible of other insurance plans in that it serves to eliminate short claims that individuals are able to cover and makes sure that insured persons absorb some of the costs of the employment interruption. While employees bear the cost of the two week waiting period, this is offset in that they pay a lower premium than their employers.

Turning to the issue of arm's length employment arrangements between relatives, section 5 of the EI act states:

Insurable employment does not include

(i) employment if the employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm’s length.

This provision ensures that conditions of employment in family businesses are similar to those who have only an employee-employer relationship. We should recognize that in the overwhelming number of cases 92% of family member claimants are able to meet this requirement.

To summarize, Bill C-269 proposes fundamental and far-reaching changes to the EI program, changes that could potentially cost over $2 billion annually. Even more important than the financial considerations is the fact that Bill C-269 could very likely reduce work incentives at a period when the overall labour market is robust and, indeed, in many sectors there are significant labour shortages.

While the government shares the member's concerns for the unemployed, the evidence at hand suggests that supporting Bill C-269 would not be a prudent course of action. For this reason and for the points that I have outlined, we cannot support Bill C-269. I can say, however, that the government is committed to ensuring that the EI program continues to serve Canadians in an effective and timely manner as we continue to monitor and assess the program.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-269 which would amend the Employment Insurance Act in very substantive ways. Let me address a couple of things raised by the member for Acadie—Bathurst relating to royal recommendation.

As the member is aware, on May 31 the Speaker announced that this bill, along with nine other private members' bills on the order paper, would require a royal recommendation and that in the absence of a royal recommendation or approval from the government, there would not be a final vote at third reading, although the bill could proceed through all stages. On this bill a royal recommendation has been flagged as being very likely. Under the very strict rules, appropriation of government revenue requires a royal recommendation. On that basis, we would have to amend the BNA to get around it. This bill is not reparable in its same form.

Having said that, the bill is an important instrument of this Parliament. Questions have been raised for many years by many members throughout the House through private members' bills and in other debate.

Members will know that during the Brian Mulroney years of government, the EI fund was really a fund. Moneys contributed by employers and employees were actually put into a separate account. The premiums went in and the benefits went out and there was the balance. The rules of the game also specified that two years of surplus were required in the account to deal with a possible recession which could use up two years' worth of premiums. That is why this benefit was established.

If we look at the history we would find that the EI fund went into a $12 billion deficit. More benefits were paid out than premiums were paid into the account to provide benefits. The government basically had to finance it on the side.

The Auditor General basically said that these were government programs. Revenue was coming in from employers and employees for insurance. Revenue was coming in for a service which would provide some level of protection for employees. The Auditor General said that the government could no longer have this separate fund, which at the time was called the unemployment insurance fund. It was the same with the Canada pension plan which was also separately dealt with from government revenues.

The Auditor General said that this thing went all over the place. Because government programs can change for benefits under EI, the EI fund had to be put into the government's general revenue fund and it would be included in the determination of surplus or deficit in the government's fiscal year. Basically it was said that this was government revenue and these were government programs.

The member for Acadie--Bathurst and others have basically said that the government has no money of its own, that it really is taxpayers' money and those who pay premiums. We understand that. It is also, in terms of consideration, providing services that the Government of Canada is supposed to provide. The member may want to look at his own income tax returns. The premiums that an employee pays on EI are also eligible for a non-refundable tax credit. The government subsidizes it, similar to the CPP.

The member is shaking his head “no”. I can tell the member, as a chartered accountant, that he does get the same non-refundable tax credit that he gets on the basic personal exemption on the premiums paid for CPP and EI. Additionally, corporations which have to pay 1.4 times the EI premiums get to deduct the premiums they pay. It is part of the cost of doing business.

The Government of Canada in fact is also subsidizing the moneys paid by the employers. So it is not fair to say it belongs totally to the employees and the employers. The Government of Canada in fact has subsidized them through the tax system. Let us get that straight.

The legislation that guides the EI program provides that if there are more than two years of surplus there is a committee that recommends annually the premiums to be set. The legislation that guides this notional EI fund is still kept track of, but there is no separate bank account. It is in the general reserve. It says that there are two ways of dealing with the surplus in excess of the two-year surplus. First, is to reduce premiums; and second, to improve programs.

I can say for my own selfish reasons and advise the House that we raised the period of maternal and parental leave to a full year from six months and that was my private member's item. I am very proud of it because a lot of moms and dads have taken advantage of this opportunity especially during the first year of a child's life which we all know is very important.

There are ways to deal with this and this is the time to do it. Because of the robustness of the economy and the employment sector, no matter how much we are reducing the premiums and introducing programs, we still have to be responsible. The EI fund continues to remain at high levels. Now is the time since there is a royal recommendation requirement on this bill.

I would encourage all hon. members to support this private member's bill to go to committee, to hear from the officials and the experts about our strategy to deal with this, and why it is that we cannot enhance the benefits as proposed by the member? What would it cost?

The member does not have the tools to cost out such a complicated reconfiguration of the benefit program of EI, but the department has the resources. Why do we not find out what those are? Let us find out what this kind of thing would actually cost and let us find out if it would allow the retention of at least two years of surplus on a sustained basis so that we do not run afoul of the legislation of the land.

This issue that is facing us is important to Canadians. It is important to businesses, it is important to workers. It is important to parliamentarians as well for the simple reason that within our communities there are people who need the benefits of the programs.

We also know that the vast majority of employees who pay into the EI program through their entire working careers never collect one cent of EI benefits, and that is a good thing. It is actually the vast majority of people who have funded the EI fund who are never going to get a benefit out of it and they are very happy not to have to draw benefits.

However, there are people within our system, whether they be seasonal workers, whether they be people who are in industries which have run into distress, whether it be people who have lost their job because of downsizing or whatever it might be. We know that those employees need the help and that is why this EI program is so extremely important to Canadians because it really does help those most in need.

I believe that the debate should be carried on. Private members' hours are two hours of 10 minute speeches. That will not do this subject matter justice. I encourage all hon. colleagues and I am certainly going to encourage my own caucus colleagues to support Bill C-269 at second reading and get it to committee, so that we have the time to hear from appropriate witnesses and to fully express the positions of all of the parties.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should ask themselves when is insurance not insurance. The answer is clear: when it does not insure anything. For too many Canadians, that is the brutal reality of employment insurance.

For years the Liberal government let the system fall apart. It treated EI like tax revenue, let the burden grow, and at the same time began neglecting the benefits. We now have a system that is failing workers and failing the economy.

The United Nations has slammed Canada for this and so should all Canadians. Employment insurance today is a scam, pure and simple. It is a scam and a sham for most workers.

In Canada today, employment insurance is not insurance at all for the vast majority of workers who pay for it. In Canada today, employment insurance is a penalty. It is a burden. It is a cost with no return for most workers.

Over two-thirds of workers who lose their jobs are not eligible for benefits. They can pay the penalty as long as they are working, but cannot collect it when they need it. It is like telling them to pay for a house insurance policy, but if their house burns down, it is too bad. They will not get any insurance, they will not get anything back. That is a scam.

If an insurance company operated like that, we would expose it as a scam and close it down. The Government of Canada has been operating a scam and it is up to this Parliament to fix it. The people who get hurt the most by this insurance scam are the ones who can least afford it. They are the breadwinners whose children depend upon them, single parents, people who are trying to break the cycle of poverty, low-paid workers in service employment, young people who are trying to pay off their student loans, and older workers who have a tough time getting back into the workforce.

It should concern every member of this House, including the 80% of members who happen to be male, that women are very hard hit by this insurance scam. These are women who all too often have to work part time in low-paying jobs, women who pay the penalty but too often are not eligible for benefits two-thirds of the time. They pay the penalty and pay through the nose for child care, if they are lucky enough to find any. Yet, they get nothing in return if, heaven forbid, they lose their jobs.

Those who need the most get the least. This makes no sense at all. We are pushing people onto social assistance, onto welfare, rather than paying them what they are due.

Just today, I wrote to the Minister of Human Resources on behalf of a constituent, a citizen who lives in my riding of Trinity--Spadina. This man has a serious blood disorder which has prevented him from working since the end of June. He is finally getting a sickness benefit, but that will only cover him until the middle of October. If he still cannot work, he can apply for an extension, going through all the paperwork again and providing the medical evidence, but even then the maximum he would get is 15 weeks and after that, nothing at all.

This constituent told me very clearly that his medical condition is really serious. It is unlikely that he will be able to work for an extended period of time, but all he can get is sickness benefits, not even regular benefits. Why? He needs to accumulate 665 insurable hours to be eligible for regular benefits. This man did his best, with his ailment and against all odds, and made it to 639 insurable hours, just 26 hours or three working days short. That means it is too bad, he will get no regular benefits. He is unlikely to ever string together enough working days at a time to be eligible.

He made a contribution to the economy by working, paid his EI and taxes. We take whatever we can and give him a few weeks of sickness benefits, and then what? What will the government do?

At the end of the day he will probably be accused of being a burden on society. This is like his house being burned down or his car getting smashed and not having insurance coverage even though he paid for the policies. It is just adding insult to injury. It is a scam and it is really unfair.

What does the employment insurance program mean, every member of the House should ask? We either give coverage to workers or we do not. If we give insurance coverage, let us ensure that everyone gets the benefits. That is what insurance coverage is for. Let us stop penalizing workers who need employment insurance and pay their dues. Let us start supporting them by making good on the insurance coverage. That is what all workers need, the safety net of insurance. These people are not asking for a handout. They are asking for a payout on the insurance coverage.

We should stop this scam, this extra penalty on workers, because it is unfair, unjust and unethical. If the House fails to pass this private member's bill and allows this practice to continue, then the government should probably be closed down and sent packing for conducting an insurance scam. That is what it is, a scam.

We have the opportunity to start reforming the system with this bill today. We can start fixing the system and providing benefits for workers who lose their jobs or become incapable of working through no fault of their own. That is what we have to do. EI payments should never be seen as a handout, just like house insurance or life insurance is never seen as a handout. The policies were paid for completely by hard earned dollars from working Canadians. Governments have been raking in this money in shovels full and we should not ask the people to grovel for it.

Actually, it is worse than a scam because people have no choice. They cannot shop around to get another employment insurance company somewhere else. They are stuck with the Government of Canada, the only game in town, so let us start by honouring those commitments and providing the protection we need. Let us support Bill C-269 and amend the Employment Insurance Act.