Debates of March 23rd, 2007

Employment Insurance Act

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, which seeks to bring down to 360 hours the number of hours of work required to qualify for EI benefits. I have had the pleasure of working very closely with my NDP colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who sponsored Bill C-265.

During the last Parliament, as the chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I tabled a report on employment insurance funds in February 2005.

At the time, the subcommittee examined the use made of employment insurance funds and the surpluses that were accumulated, surpluses that continue to be accumulated and keep growing. The EI fund is one that is not benefiting those paying into it. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult for workers to take advantage of a program they have been contributing to.

It has been pointed out by previous speakers that only 32% of women who contributed to the EI plan currently qualify for benefits and that only 37% of men who have employment qualify for employment insurance benefits even if they contributed to the plan.

What is the use of a fund, which now stands at close to $50 billion, if that fund is not doing what it is supposed to do, which is to help the very people that it was designed to help?

At this point, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, for his hard work on this file and for his single-minded determination.

Recommendation 10 of the standing committee's report states:

The Committee recommends that the government implement a uniform 360 hours qualification requirement, irrespective of regional unemployment rates or the type of benefit. This would establish a qualification requirement based on a 30-hour week over a 12-week period.

This was a key recommendation we made to the minister at the time, because it applies not only to workers in urban areas but also to those in the regions. Ours is a country with very clear-cut seasons. Our society relies heavily on seasonal workers, be it in the fisheries industry or in other industries where one can only work at certain times of the year.

In 2006, close to 15,123 foreign seasonal workers came to Ontario from Mexico and the Caribbean. Under the seasonal workers program, the SAWP, agricultural workers from Mexico and the Caribbean come here every year to help in harvesting our crops. For the past 10 years, workers coming to Canada under this program have been overwhelming male, accounting for 97% of the total in 2004.

Our country cannot function without this supplementary source of reliable and qualified seasonal labour to ensure our crops are planted and harvested before the winter. Canada has even moved to increase the number of workers from Guatemala over the past two or three years, even though they are not formally included in the program.

In the past 10 years, Mexico and Jamaica have become the two leading source countries for agricultural workers. These countries accounted for 53%, or 10,780 people, and 28%, or 5,736 people, in 2004. Mexico, however, has seen its participation rise from around 5,000 workers a year in the early 1990s to over 10,000 in each of the past four years, both on a stock and flow basis. Other notable source countries are Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados.

Hon. members probably wonder why I am referring to these workers in today's debate. While we depend on their work for food, while we require them to contribute to the employment insurance fund, these workers are another group that cannot benefit from the EI program, because they are temporary foreign workers. Our system is organized in such a way that they are forced to contribute to the employment insurance fund, but they cannot benefit from it.

Is it fair? Perhaps these people should be exempted from having to contribute to the program, or else their money should be used to set up training programs to allow them to develop their skills and their knowledge of the industry. This way, their country would benefit more from their experience, and not just from their financial contribution.

After a lot of pressure by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union-Canada, the UFCW, these workers finally became eligible for family allowances, in 2001. The UFCW sees this progress as a first step in its fight for equality. In its June 2006 report, it reiterated that migrant workers should not be forced to make employment insurance contributions if they do not have full access to benefits.

This issue could be challenged in court under section 15 of the Charter, which provides that every individual has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. If the union wins its case, foreign seasonal workers will have full access to employment insurance benefits.

We are talking about respect and dignity for our workers who pay into the employment insurance fund. I think all parties in this House, perhaps with the exception of the party across from me, agree on this.

I agree with some of the members who have spoken before me when they say that the entire EI system and the act need to be reviewed and overhauled to reflect the changing needs of our society and the Canadian workplace.

We, as leaders who were elected to govern, cannot afford to consistently ignore the needs of our electorate. Our population is aging. We will be even more dependent on all types of foreign workers and we will always be dependent on seasonal agricultural workers. Either that or we ourselves will need to help the farmers harvest our own food.

Our society is also moving toward increased part time work.

Are we going to continue to behave in this fashion with workers in our country, that is by ignoring their needs?

I hope that, regardless of the flaws that this bill may have, we will ignore them and we will adopt it at second reading, so that it can be referred to a standing committee for a more in-depth review.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss this issue.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate and to deliver a speech on Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), which aims at improving the employment insurance plan. I take the opportunity to salute my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. I remember his early days in politics, which were very inspiring as a matter of fact. He used to put the Liberals in their place; they had been in power for a bit too long. He did the same for the Conservatives who, before them, were also not much help to the workers who had contributed and who are still contributing to the employment insurance plan. Just like the previous government, the present government continues not to give back to the workers the money they deserve and need when times get tough. The Bloc Québécois endorses the member's position. This is frankly an excellent initiative on the part of my NDP colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

First and foremost, I would like to emphasize that this is a good bill. Here are three points showing this. First, by lowering the threshold for becoming a major attachment claimant to 360 hours, it makes special benefits available to those with that level of insurable employment. Second, the bill sets the benefit payable to 55% of the average weekly insurable earnings during the highest-paid 12 weeks in the 12-month period preceding the interruption of earnings. Third, the bill reduces the qualifying period before receiving benefits and removes the distinctions made in the qualifying period on the basis of the regional unemployment rate. This is very good.

This bill touches on a number of important points. First, employment insurance is no longer an assistance program. It has become a hidden tax because not all those who contribute have access to the program when they become unemployed. Under the Liberals, the employment insurance fund was used to balance the budget even though that is not at all the purpose of employment insurance. Although the Conservatives voted in favour of an independent employment insurance fund, the surpluses generated remain in the consolidated fund and are still being used for other purposes. That was the case last September 25 and with this budget as well. We do not have an independent employment insurance fund and this issue must remain in the forefront. This is a priority for the Bloc Québécois.

Another important point is the Auditor General's report of November 23, 2004, which reported at the time that the government continued—as she said—to loot the employment insurance fund despite the intentions of parliamentarians. Furthermore, the powers of the Employment Insurance Commission, whose membership includes contributors, will apparently be suspended for yet another year. That happened in 2004 and it has not changed. This situation is deplorable.

Conservatives voted against improvements to the employment insurance program in Bill C-278 and against the Bloc Québécois Bill C-269. It is about time that these individuals, who have been elected, respond to the needs of citizens, of the workers who need this fund—which is an insurance fund—when they lose their jobs.

As for the Bloc Québécois, it is still dead set against the looting of the employment insurance fund and proposes, among other things, that an independent fund and commission be established. The Bloc Québécois also demands that the federal government pay back misused money. That is very important. Money taken from the employment insurance fund must be returned to those who paid into it, the employers and employees, for when it is needed by workers who lose their jobs.

Improving the system for workers in a vulnerable situation is a matter of principle that should be defended. In the past two years, the Bloc Québécois has worked tirelessly on improving this system and we have another example of that today.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities tabled or passed in its report of February 2005, no fewer than 28 very important recommendations that have to be considered and incorporated into the bill in order to respond to the needs of the workers. I will not read the 28 items, but I will cite a few to illustrate the importance and urgency of swiftly moving forward with the bill we are talking about today.

First, for example, the committee recommends a uniform 360 hour qualification requirement. This criterion, which was proposed by the committee at the time, is now in the bill. The committee also recommended a calculation based on the best 12 weeks of insurable employment; that is how benefits should be calculated for those who lose their jobs. The committee recommended increasing the benefit rate from 55% to 60% of average earnings before workers end up in a vulnerable situation. The committee also recommended that the government consider extending employment insurance coverage to self-employed workers. This is very important. This is a situation that did not exist before, or was quite rare at one time. Now it is a reality and these people should have the opportunity to receive employment insurance by contributing to it, of course, and being eligible for it.

The committee also recommended removing the arm's-length relationship clause within the employment insurance criteria, and eliminating the waiting period for those engaged in approved training. Furthermore, the committee recommended that individuals who take part in training to improve their status and perfect their skills should not be penalized, because they will be taking a course while receiving EI benefits, for instance. I could give countless other arguments, but let us move on.

The bill would reduce the minimum qualifying period to 360 hours of work for everyone—as we heard earlier—but the benefit period would vary with the region and the regional rate of unemployment. In comparison to the current figures, the new system would represent an average increase of five weeks in the benefit period and an increase in the maximum benefit period from 45 to 50 weeks. In regions with high unemployment—13% or more—it would provide between 30 and 50 weeks of benefits, depending on the hours worked and the unemployment rate.

For Quebec's high unemployment regions, however, it would substantially reduce what we call the spring gap or black hole. For example, in Gaspé, where the unemployment rate as of October 7, 2006, was 17.6%, a person who worked 360 hours would be eligible for 36 weeks of benefits.

I could go on. Nonetheless, we can clearly see the relevance of this bill, which is extremely important for all workers throughout Quebec and Canada.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-265.

I would first like to join other colleagues from all parties who have acknowledged the work done by the member for Acadie—Bathurst and the commitment he has to this issue and to unemployed people.

As a relative newcomer to this place, I want to say that he sets a real example and is an excellent role model. A lot of the veteran members tell us, at least they did before the minority governments, to spend the first couple of years getting to know the ropes, how the place works and what our role is, and to get things settled in our ridings, but to eventually get to the point where we focus on an area that matters, an area that matters to us, matters to our constituents and makes a difference to the country.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst has done that and I think he has done it in an exemplary way, to the point that in 1998-99 he travelled across the entire country, visited every province and one of the territories, which at that time was 50%, and came up with a report that spoke to the inadequacies of EI, then called UI, at that time.

That is almost 10 years ago. As a footnote, let me tell members what I noticed as I was going through the report. The second sentence notes that in 1998 the accumulated UI surplus, as it was called then when it was unemployment insurance, reached $20 billion.

What an enormous number that is until we compare it to the number that exists today and that happens to be $50 billion in surplus.

[An hon. member]

Mercy.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, and it was $20 billion 10 years ago and the alarm was raised by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who said that Canada could do better. He said then that Canada had a bigger obligation than it was providing for people who find themselves without a job. Now, 10 years later, not nearly enough has happened.

As for this $50 billion, let us be clear about it right off the bat. Unlike most things that we deal with here, and notwithstanding the Speaker's ruling regarding whether this bill requires a royal recommendation or not, the fact remains that none of that $50 billion is what we would normally call taxpayers' money.

Let me say that again because it is really important: the $50 billion surplus that now exists in the EI fund is not taxpayers' money. That money is paid in premiums by workers and employers.

Obviously employees pay because they are the ones to benefit. They have an obligation to pay part of the premiums to support the fund. I have no problem with that.

Quite frankly, businesses are paying into the fund because they are in a society and an economy in Canada where they can make a lot of money. We have a great economy in this country, and if they are going to take some of that money by way of profit for their company, they have certain obligations to the rest of the country. One of those obligations is to put some money, by way of premiums, into a fund that helps deal with the catastrophe of what happens when a working family loses a job.

So what are we asking for today in Bill C-265? Is the member asking for such an enormous amount? Is this such an unreasonable, wild-eyed, lefty and kind of crazy idea? Is that what the member has in front of us? No, it is quite the contrary.

Bill C-265 seeks to do two main things. In doing these two things, the member for Acadie—Bathurst is trying to bring justice to this issue because there is a real and inherent unfairness in this chamber and, quite frankly, we have had enough of government members talking to us about the broader context, which is what I heard them talk about this morning.

They say the reason we cannot do this for workers is that we have to look at the broader context. Those members should not talk to us about the broader context when only 32% of the women who pay EI premiums qualify and when only 37% of men who pay EI premiums qualify.

Members of the government talk about 85%. Do not be snowed by them. If we look carefully, the 85% speaks to those who are eligible. We were sort of wondering where did the other 15% go because they are already eligible, but there are people who are eligible who get a job immediately, which is the usual case, or perhaps they do not apply because they know they are going to another job or are in the process of moving. There are reasons that that 15% exists. Do not for a moment let government members or Liberals who defend this also say that the 85% negates the earlier statistics. The 85% represents those who qualify. If people qualify, they are going to get it.

We are talking about people who do not qualify because the rules of eligibility are too narrow. That is why only 32% of women and only 37% of men now qualify.

Let us stand back and look at a different broader context. There is $50 billion in a fund that is there exclusively to help Canadians who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. The rules, however, are set in such a way that only 32% of all the women and 37% of all the men who pay premiums actually qualify to get the benefit.

Let us think about that. Let us think about people and their family members and how many are making those payments. They look at their pay stubs and that money is coming off every week or every two weeks, but it is insurance. It is insurance against disaster.

When that job loss notice lands on the kitchen table, there are literally millions of families who immediately go into crisis. This money is there to help them through that. Where does the government or any other government get off saying they cannot have that money because somehow it is going to wreck the national economy? The money is already there. Businesses have done what they are supposed to do. Workers have done what they are supposed to do. Why is the government not doing what it is supposed to do and making sure that much needed money gets into the hands of the families that need it?

That is why we are so proud to stand here with our colleague, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, in support of Bill C-265. It brings much needed justice to unemployed workers and their families who quite frankly are getting shafted, whether it is by the Conservatives or the Liberals, but it is time it stopped. It ought to stop with this bill. Let us bring some fairness to this place and give people what they are entitled to.

We are proud to stand united with the member. We urge everyone to please look at this. It is a minority government. We can do anything as individual parliamentarians. Members should ask themselves if it was their son or daughter, or mom or dad who was denied eligibility to a fund they paid into, how they would feel about that in terms of Canadian justice. This bill is about justice for workers. It deserves to pass.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

I would first like to commend the members of the New Democratic Party and the member for Acadie—Bathurst for their ongoing interest in enhancing Canada's employment insurance program, one of the key elements of our social safety net.

Our government is open to making improvements to the employment insurance program, but since this is such a very important program, we must be sure that any changes must truly be for the better.

This bill proposes dramatic changes to qualification for and entitlement to employment insurance benefits. While I do not doubt the sincerity and the intentions of the member who has proposed this bill, there is no evidence to suggest that these changes would improve employment insurance and every reason to believe that they would not.

One of the program's chief goals is to encourage attachment to the labour market. In other words, the program should encourage Canadians to seek and to retain employment.

To demonstrate the potential negative impact of this bill, I think it would be useful to examine just how well the program is currently working.

The system as it is currently structured is meeting claimants' needs. The Employment Insurance Commission produces an annual monitoring and assessment report to provide information on whether or not the program is working effectively. The 2005 report makes it clear that when Canadians need employment insurance, it is there for them both in terms of the amount they receive and how long their benefits last.

In fiscal 2004-05, for example, the program provided approximately $13 billion in income benefits to some two million Canadians. More than 83% of the unemployed who had paid into the program and had a recent job separation were eligible for benefits. Moreover, more than 90% of employees met the eligibility requirements for special benefits, such as sickness, maternity or parental benefits.

Ongoing analysis also indicates that the duration of benefits is also meeting the needs of Canadian workers. On average, regular beneficiaries collect less than two-thirds of their regular benefits. The number of beneficiaries who are exhausting their benefits is declining. In fact, the benefit exhaustion rate has been steadily declining since 1996.

All the evidence available suggests that the employment insurance program is meeting the needs of claimants. Any program can be improved, but before we make dramatic changes, we need to make sure that the outcomes will be positive.

This brings me back to the bill in front of the House today. Among its provisions, the proposed legislation seeks to introduce a flat 360 hour entrance requirement for regular and for special benefits. This would eliminate the variable entrance requirement, as well as provisions for new and returning entrants. The bill also seeks to introduce a best 12 weeks formula for calculating income benefits.

I believe, taken together, these proposed changes would undermine the program's focus on labour market attachment. To put it another way, the changes could reduce incentives to seek employment. As we all know, the Canadian economy is facing growing labour shortages and one of the government's policies is to promote participation in the workforce.

Let me specifically detail my concerns with the bill.

First, in a region with high unemployment, it can be more difficult to obtain work and to build up the necessary hours to qualify for employment insurance. That is why the program as it is currently structured has put in place variable entrance requirements. Through this policy, the program adjusts entrance requirements each month to reflect unemployment rates by region. As unemployment rates go up, entrance requirements go down and benefits are extended. This has proven to be a sensible approach to address regional disparities in economic opportunities.

The flat rate proposed by the bill would dismantle this system. It would essentially favour Canadians who live in regions with low unemployment, who would likely have an easier time meeting the lower entrance requirements. I am concerned about the fairness of this proposal in changing the variable entrance requirement. Reducing the entrance requirements would also have a very marginal impact on the number of people who would qualify for benefits.

There is no vast pool of applicants being turned down for benefits because of high entrance requirements. In fact, more than 83% of unemployed people who have paid into the program and who have become unemployed through no fault of their own are eligible to receive benefits.

Second, I am also concerned that the bill would eliminate the 910 hour entrance requirement for new entrants to the labour force and for those re-entering after an extended absence. The 910 hour entrance requirement strengthens the link between hours of work and entitlement to benefits. It helps present a cycle of reliance on employment insurance. Indeed, the last four monitoring and assessment reports suggest that the current entrance requirements encourage workforce attachment. This is not a provision we should idly discard. That is why the government launched a pilot project recently to test eligibility thresholds for new entrants and for re-entrants into the workforce.

The pilot project drops the entrance requirements from 910 hours to 840 hours, benefiting more than 16,000 individuals each year. However, before we embark on such significant changes to the entrance requirements, we should await the results of the pilot project.

Third, the bill also proposes to calculate and employment insurance benefits based on the best 12 weeks of earnings over a 52 week period preceding a claim. Again, it would be premature to accept this change without sound evidence.

To that end, the government is currently running a pilot project known as the “best 14 weeks”. It is testing the impact of the very same principle that the proposal in the bill seeks to address. This initiative will test labour market impacts of improving incentives for individuals to accept all available work, including weeks of work that are shorter than their normal full weeks. It will also test whether employers facing labour shortages will have access to additional workers. Consequently we should await the results of the pilot project and make a decision informed by logic, fairness and the evidence.

Fourth, the reason why I think we should also oppose the bill is that it extends benefits for employment insurance in a way that is not accessible to all Canadians. For example, the area that I represent, the greater Toronto area, has a much lower percentage of the workforce participating in the employment insurance program than other regions of the country. There is evidence to show that this is a result of the many new Canadians who have recently arrived in the country and who participate in the workforce but do not participate in employment insurance. They are in occupations that are often self-employed and are not eligible to participate in employment insurance programs. By extending the employment insurance program to greater entitlements than is presently the case, we are in effect not creating a greater benefit for those newer Canadians living in some of the country's larger cities like the greater Toronto area.

There is evidence to suggest that these new Canadians are some of the most disadvantaged in our society, that they are increasingly falling behind in their social outcomes, their poverty levels, their unemployment rates and the like. This is not something that is unbeknownst to public policy-makers. It is something that has been highlighted by many organizations, including the United Way of Greater Toronto. By extending benefits, especially benefits like caregiver benefits, we would not include this group, many of whom are disadvantaged.

For these four reasons, we should oppose the bill. I urge all members of the House to vote against the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, I want to advise him it would be useful for him to watch the clock. He will be interrupted at 2:25 p.m. so I can recognize the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst who has the right of reply.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the warning.

We have already heard many of the benefits of the employment insurance system. It is a valued social program. All of us in the House agree that it has proven its helpfulness and usefulness. When we consider the positive impact that it has had for children and parents, we know it has addressed the aspect of a financial burden in stressful times. However, inequities remain in the act, which is why it needs a full review and I am pleased to bring these to the attention of the House today.

In 2000, the country was divided into economic regions for the purpose of determining benefits.

Thunder Bay, which is part of my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, which is defined as a metropolitan area, became its own economic region, identified as number 37. Anything outside of Thunder Bay falls in the economic code of number 38. The difference between these two economic regions is immense.

For example, Mary lives in the city of Thunder Bay and Jennifer lives in Gillies, which is about 10 minutes outside of Thunder Bay. Both ladies work at company ABC. If company ABC has a work shortage and lays off a dozen of its employees, including Mary and Jennifer, both would apply for EI benefits.

Mary's application would fall under economic region number 37 for the city of Thunder Bay. She is required to have a minimum of 665 hours of work to qualify for the benefits.

Jennifer's application falls under economic region number 38 for northern Ontario. She is required to have a minimum of 525 hours of work to qualify for the benefits.

Under economic region number 37, Mary is eligible for a minimum of 15 weeks and a maximum of 38 weeks of benefits.

Under economic region number 38, Jennifer is eligible for a minimum of 26 weeks and a maximum of 45 weeks of benefits.

Those two individuals live just 10 minutes apart but Jennifer can get up to seven weeks more benefits than Mary for doing the same job at the same business.

Further, Jennifer's required hours are 525 compared to 665 for Mary. That is a 140 hour difference. This is a serious inequity that needs to be addressed.

Let us go quickly to severance pay.

Hundreds of forestry workers have been laid off at plants across my riding. Many of these individuals have worked for over 20 years at the same company. They have now lost their jobs due to global challenges, high fibre costs, high energy costs and, after so many years of dedicated service, these employees are entitled to severance pay to help them make a new start.

The employment insurance program views severance pay as a privilege, not an entitlement of their years of service as a dedicated employee. All severance must be allocated before employment insurance kicks in. I am aware of many constituents who have waited nearly a full year before being able to receive employment insurance benefits.

I strongly disagree with this punishing view of severance. Severance should be fully applicable to downsized employees to use as they will without penalty. If the penalty were not applied to severance, individuals would be better able to use that allotment to improve their lives, to pay for retraining, to start up a new business venture or to partner in an existing business. In reality, this penalty serves as a disincentive for these employees.

I recently received an e-mail from Shaun, an employee of Bowater for 27 years before he was permanently laid off. He views that $50 billion fund that he has been paying into for those 27 years as something vital to take care of him and his five children.

However, when we really examine the nature of a support network, it must be fair. It must induce respect and dignity, and that is why with this private member's bill before us is an opportunity to review and improve it.

Indeed, I would have to say to the members opposite, rather than carte blanche opposing this, let us have a truly meaningful, open and thorough review. I believe in this way we can make a positive difference.

All of us as elected representatives receive overtures. In fact, all of these cases that will come to us have that element of sorrow because people's lives have been disrupted. They have to decide what they will do. This is where a caring and compassionate country eases that burden, takes the pressure off and guides these people through the difficult times.

Indeed, a caring society and one that is indeed not only having a budget year but is having a budget in the EI fund is where I believe must be more sharing, more generous indeed, so that these people can carry through.

I do not think that there is anybody in the House who has not spoken to people experiencing those kinds of difficulties. When one sees it, then one realizes that in a fortunate country our measurement is how we treat those who are not having the same fortune.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members who have spoken about Bill C-265, a bill that is very important to me.

I think this bill is even more important to workers. I am talking about the 800,000 workers who are not eligible for employment insurance, yet still contribute to it. This bill is also important to the 1.2 million Canadian children who are hungry. The cuts made to employment insurance have contributed to making these children poorer. When parents lose their jobs, the children and families suffer directly.

I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois member for Chambly—Borduas, the Conservative member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, the Liberal member for Laval—Les Îles, the Conservative member for Wellington—Halton Hills, the Liberal member for Cape Breton—Canso, the Bloc Québécois member for Gatineau, the Liberal member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, the Conservative member for Blackstrap, the NDP member for Surrey North, and the NDP member for Hamilton Centre, as well as all those who have spoken over the past 10 years, as long as I have sat here in the House of Commons.

It is false to say that 85% of workers are eligible for employment insurance, as the government claims. This was also the message the Liberals were sending when they were in power. The fact is that only 32% of women and 38% of men who contribute to the system receive employment insurance. This is not right.

EI belongs to men and women who lose their job. Just this morning, L'Acadie Nouvelle ran an article about a western company that came to Caraquet to meet workers. About 400 workers were at the meeting and were ready to move out west to work. Some would say that it is fine since they would find a job there. But what will be the results of EI cuts? We are destroying the seasonal fishing industry.

Last year, for the first time in its history, Prince Edward Island had to get workers from Russia because there were no more local people interested in participating in the fishing industry that is so dear to our heart in the Atlantic region.

The aim of the bill is not to steal the government's money. Quite the contrary, it says that the money belongs to the workers. If the government does not want people to benefit from EI, it only has to create jobs and stimulate economic development. Let us make people work but do not let them die from hunger.

We receive calls from people who tell us that they do not have money, they do not have benefits and they do not want to leave their family. They want to work in their community, in their own province. But see the situation the government has created.

This morning, I was disappointed that the Speaker of the House said we need a royal recommendation and that there will be no vote without a royal recommendation. That is why I am asking my Conservative colleagues to vote for this bill at second reading. We have to bring experts before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the parliamentary committee responsible for employment insurance. We have to lay the cards on the table and stop saying that 85% of people who pay into the employment insurance fund are eligible for benefits, which is not true. They should stop saying things like that. The government must understand once and for all that only 32% of women and 38% of men are eligible for employment insurance. These statistics were provided by Human Resources and Social Development Canada and by experts.

What is the upshot of this? The best 12 weeks. It is shameful that under our employment insurance regime, workers receive only 55% of their salary. Moreover, to punish them further, there are 14-, 15- and 17-week categories. Workers are being punished twice over.

The government says that workers are dependent on employment insurance. That is not true. The government is dependent on employment insurance because it balances its budget and promises a zero deficit at the expense of men and women who have lost their jobs, at the expense of children who should be in school and at the expense of people who need that money to feed their families.

For all these reasons, I hope the government will change its mind. I would like to see the Liberals, Bloc members, Conservatives and NDPers set aside their partisanship. We must give back to our workers the program that belongs to them. If we do not want people on employment insurance, we must create jobs and stimulate economic development. Our citizens will have jobs and will not need this program.

I can assure you that people in Atlantic Canada, the Gaspé, northern Ontario are not lazy nor are those who have lost their jobs in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or in the Northwest Territories. Canadians are a valiant people and they should be given back the program that belongs to them.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 2:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 28 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 2:32 p.m., the House is adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

The House adjourned at 2:32 p.m.