Debates of March 5th, 2009

Opposition Motion -- Employment Insurance

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I want to read a quote from David Dodge and then I have a couple of quick questions. He talked about the two weeks being earlier or later. He said, “That two weeks is there for a very good reason. Moreover, many of the people who are being laid off get some sort of bridge payment through that period, so that's not where the real issue is. The real issue is that some of these people are going to be off work for a rather long period of time...”

Let us relate that to the auto industry. We cannot go from over 17 million vehicles to less than 11 million vehicles on a permanent basis and not expect that some of that job loss is going to be permanent.

First, is there not some sense in giving people more time later to get retrained and get into the workforce in another position? Second, has the NDP costed all these measures?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the member that those two weeks are in fact very critical, regardless of whether someone is being laid off from work or has lost that job either permanently or for a short period of time.

Those two weeks are critical because we are talking about families who need help. In the case of those two weeks, perhaps they can have a little less to worry about as they begin their job search and continue to look at other options for themselves and their families.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a really short question. It is the second part of my question. Has the NDP costed these measures?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the member that billions of dollars taken over the last number of years is gathering dust right now. That money belongs in EI. It should be going to workers and their families. I would like to see that money returned to them.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we are talking about the costing issue, it would be really important to note that the cost to those who do not get their money is much more than what the government says it is going to cost. The money is there. Maybe the member could answer as to the impact on women of this, given the fact that very few women are able to access unemployment insurance.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, we all know that women have less access to EI funds than men do. It is a serious problem. If I could just go back briefly to the hon. government member, perhaps we could talk about a couple of other issues I talked about, which involve the government actually creating an unemployment problem. Perhaps we could come to some resolution.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River for sharing his time with me. I also want to thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for introducing this very important motion, as well as the member for Acadie—Bathurst for the amount of work he has done over a number of years to try to get the Liberal and Conservative governments' attention regarding the importance of looking at some dramatic changes to the employment insurance fund.

Prior to 1995, when it was called unemployment insurance, the fund was much more responsive to workers' needs. What we have found over the last 10 or so years is that the ability for the employment insurance fund to provide a meaningful social safety net for workers has been eroded, and now substantial numbers of workers across this country simply do not qualify.

One of the important reasons for having a viable employment insurance fund is that it protects the most vulnerable workers and families in the country.

In my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, over the last number of years we have seen an erosion of the forestry sector. Of course, the deeply flawed softwood lumber agreement has exacerbated the crisis in the forestry sector. In my own riding and on Vancouver Island, we are also suffering from raw log exports. We are watching the resources from our communities being shipped somewhere else for processing. One after another, our sawmills are closing down, and of course the supporting industries to those sawmills are also closing down. We lost Madill, which provided heavy equipment to the forestry sector. That company had been in business for about 100 years, and it has closed its doors. This kind of carnage in the forestry sector has untold impacts on the rest of our economy. Whether it is restaurants, whether it is other service industries, whether it is clothing stores, they are all being impacted by the fact that these well-paying jobs are no longer in our community.

In the motion we are proposing, we are talking about eliminating the two-week waiting period, reducing the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours, allowing self-employed workers to participate, raising the benefit rate to 60%, and so on.

I want to put a bit of a face to this. When we talk about workers, we are talking about people and their families, and I want to quote from a couple of emails I have received.

Kirk Smith wrote, “I was under the false assumption that if I had contributed for 35 years, I would at least be entitled to one year's benefits, but the receipt of benefits is only based on the current year's contributions”.

Then he had some questions: “When the five-week extension of the benefits becomes law, will I be able to collect them after my claim has run out? Can the laws be changed to take into consideration the number of unclaimed years a worker has contributed to the plan? The current system seems grossly unfair, when only the current year of contributions is taken into account”.

He goes on to say, further on in his email, “I am slowly going broke”.

I received another email from Cathy and Wayne Kaye. It says in part, “My husband received word last Tuesday that his mill at Western Forest Products in Nanaimo is being shut down indefinitely due to the global economic crisis. The future of what was once the stronghold of the province's economic structure is dwindling into obscurity”.

I received an email from Shelley Osborne about her husband's situation. She wrote about the fact that he was only allowed 24 weeks of unemployment insurance, that he is 54 years old and has been in the forestry industry for 31 years, and that he was working with Ted LeRoy Trucking, which has now applied for creditor protection.

I have a letter that came out from a number of organizations, including the United Steelworkers, the Coast Forest Products Association, the Interior Forest Labour Relations Association, and so on. They wrote to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and specifically asked the minister to take into account that 28% of the current forest industry unionized employees have worked fewer than 420 hours in the past year and 39.6% have worked fewer than 700 hours.

I know many of us have received email after email talking about what it means to families to lose their jobs and then find out that either they do not qualify for employment insurance because they have not worked enough hours--and the 360 hours would capture a significant number of these workers--or, in my area, that they are affected by this anomaly that ties the unemployment rate to the Vancouver labour market.

The unemployment rate in Nanaimo—Cowichan is significantly higher, but because of the regional anomaly, people are paid for fewer weeks on a claim because the unemployment rate is lower in Vancouver. That makes absolutely no sense.

I have written to ask the minister to consider realigning the region so that the labour market appropriately reflects what is happening in Nanaimo--Cowichan, and the minister has the ability to do this. I have to tell the minister that in British Columbia, Vancouver Island is an entity separate from Vancouver. In fact, a body of water separates them. We need to have the Vancouver Island labour market considered separately from that of Vancouver. This would allow many workers to extend the length of their claims. I would urge the minister to take a look at that so that we do not have workers sliding off employment insurance and onto welfare.

There is a very good reason for us to talk about putting money into the employment insurance fund to allow workers to either qualify for benefits or to have their benefits extended beyond the five weeks that the government has offered.

One of them is called the multiplier effect. The multiplier formula put forward by Ian Lee from Carleton University shows that every dollar spent on employment insurance results in $1.64 being injected into the economy. Mr. Lee says that there is a much quicker response in the economy through providing people with some income because the EI money has little red tape attached to it and can be counted on to flow through the economy in a predictable fashion.

We know that when workers and their families receive employment insurance, they go and spend it locally: they buy groceries, they pay the rent, they pay their mortgage. We have a tangible impact on the local economy. To me it would make sense to make sure workers have an income so that they can survive and buy things in their own local cities and towns and villages. It is that kind of immediate economic stimulus that would have a direct impact on the health and well-being of our communities.

In the context of the discussion today, I want to remind Canadians who are paying attention that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said, “We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay at home and get paid for it, not when we still have significant skills shortages in many parts of this country”. I would be hard pressed to say that on an average of $447 a week, someone is having a lucrative living. If the minister thinks that is such a great income, I would suggest that she try living on it and try to feed her family, pay her mortgage and maybe make her car payment.

I would urge members of the House to support the NDP motion, which would have our communities remain livable and maintain a quality of life that each and every one of us would wish for our own families.

A member asked if the NDP had costed these proposals. Absolutely. We have estimated that they would cost $3.33 billion. We had $57 billion in the employment insurance fund misappropriated by the current and previous governments. This money was used for deficit reduction. It was used in the consolidated revenue fund. That money should have been put aside so that when there was an economic downturn, as inevitably happens in an economic cycle, there would be money available for workers and their families and money available for significant retraining, because many industries are now having to restructure and are looking at the fact that they are going to retrain even their existing workers. That money was paid by workers and their companies, and that money should remain for the use of workers and their companies.

In closing, I would urge the House to support this very important motion, to support the most vulnerable in our communities and to vote “yes” when this comes up for a vote.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member who, over the years, has been a consistent advocate on behalf of those in need. EI has been on the agenda of Parliament ever since I came here in 1993.

One of the elements in the motion before us today has to do with self-employed workers. I am asking for information for those who might be watching the debate because it might tend to raise expectations and we really should be clear.

I understand that studies have been going on about having eligibility for parental and maternity leave benefits, sick benefits, et cetera, but the real question comes down to whether or not laying one's self off would allow one to qualify for benefits.

Second, would a self-employed person be responsible for effectively paying the premium, both parts of it, where the employee pays one part and the employer pays 1.4 times that additionally?

For clarification, how might the self-employed worker system work?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a fairly complicated question, given the amount of time I have to answer. However, I will touch on a couple of points.

The discussion around self-employed workers has been going on at various committees for a number of years. For example, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women started looking at self-employed workers and the potential for maternity benefits.

Sometimes it seems that what happens in this House is that when in doubt, conduct a study, then when we do not want to make a decision, have another study and then study the study. This discussion has been going on for a significant number of years.

I would argue that we do have the resources to frame how people would get paid employment insurance if they were self-employed. The Canada Revenue Agency has extensive experience in determining what employment is insurable in the current context of a worker-employer relationship. Some of that criteria could be transferred to self-employed workers,

There could be other mechanisms. For example, there is significant labour market information that can determine where there are downturns in particular sectors. There are mechanisms that could be used to determine whether self-employed workers were laying themselves off when there could be work available.

There is an adjudication process within employment insurance that takes a look at whether people have voluntarily quit their jobs. That could also be employed for self-employed workers.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague really touched upon some of the issues. The fact is that the biggest economic stimulus we could have is ensuring that people contributing to EI actually have access to EI.

She also talked about the cost of EI. The cost of EI is not really that great when we consider that these people have actually paid into it. What is a shame, as she has mentioned, is the fact that the Liberals and the Conservatives have dipped into that pot to either give corporate tax cuts to their friends or put it into general revenue.

What does my colleague feel the impact is on someone who does not have EI. What is the impact on the municipalities? Where do they actually get their money? I am sure she will agree with me that it is probably through social services, which has an even bigger impact on those municipalities.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, different provinces have different arrangements for how social assistance is paid. I am from British Columbia where it is a little different than Ontario. However, my understanding is that in Ontario the municipalities end up being on the hook for at least a portion of income assistance or welfare, depending upon what each province calls it.

This is another example of downloading. Many levels of government have continued to offload, download or softload to the next level of government. In this case, we have a federal government that is abdicating its responsibility as the manager of the employment insurance fund and shoving it down to either the provincial or municipal levels.

What we know is that the municipalities have limited ability to raise revenue. If the government is going to increase their costs without any input from them, they will need to cut other vital services.

I would argue that if the government will take that kind of approach to fiscal management. It often talks about accountability and transparency but it needs to include those other levels of government in the discussion about the impact on their own budgets.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

I am pleased to rise today in this debate proposed by the representative for the riding of Hamilton Mountain. Our government is very concerned about the current economic situation. It is concerned about the employment situation in Canada and about the industries that are struggling. It is concerned about the all too many families that are in financial difficulty because of the economic crisis. We are not the only ones who are concerned. A recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed that one Canadian in four is worried about losing his or her job because of the current economic crisis.

I want to tell these people today that our government is unwavering in its desire to help them get through these difficult times. For our government, the status quo and doing nothing are not possible options. A time when our economy is being shaken by worldwide shock waves is no time simply to fold our arms. On the contrary, we have implemented a number of measures over the last months, and more recently, there is our economic action plan, which includes massive, rapid, targeted investments. We are tackling this crisis, taking the bull by the horns so to speak, in order to help out families, working people and seniors.

This action plan will not just help our fellow citizens, businesses and cities in five or ten years but right now. It is helping them immediately, on an emergency basis, when they are most in need. This action plan is directed first at the people who are most affected and our priorities include working people. The economic action plan was passed yesterday in the House. I rose then on the very spot where I am standing now to support this plan for our working people, families and seniors.

There is a program for people who unfortunately lose their jobs. It is employment insurance, which is very helpful in tough economic times. Our government is acting to ensure it provides additional assistance to Canadians who lose their jobs. After carrying out consultations, we extended the pilot project providing five additional weeks of benefits to all of Canada to help people who are unemployed for longer periods.

In addition to these efforts, we announced that the current employment insurance contribution rate, which is at its lowest level since 1982, will remain unchanged in 2010. This alone will put $4.5 billion back into the pockets of our companies and working people. But that is not all.

We are also adopting measures in our economic action plan to assist the regions facing the highest unemployment, as is the case in Bas-Saint-Laurent, Côte-Nord, Centre-du-Québec, Chicoutimi-Jonquière and Trois-Rivières. We will continue the 14 best weeks program until December 2010, as well as the program for labour force re-entrants. So these are concrete, targeted measures for the regions most in need of them. This is in our economic action plan, which was adopted yesterday and which we are implementing as quickly as possible.

These are projects that make a difference in the lives of thousands of Quebec families, that increase workers' benefits by letting them qualify for the system with fewer hours. That is not all we are doing for Canadians. Other measures are being taken. We plan to help more Canadians keep working when the companies that hire them suffer temporary slowdowns. This is an essential element of our budget. We are focusing our efforts on preserving jobs, keeping people employed, and providing training.

In addition, the work-sharing program is an existing element of the program. It allows a company experiencing a slowdown to keep these people on the job with employment insurance benefits until business picks up again.

Conscious of the level of uncertainty that many businesses are facing at this time of instability in global markets, our minister has today announced that, over the next two years, our government will be extending the work-sharing agreements by 14 weeks, to a maximum of 52 weeks.

Furthermore, we will be facilitating access to these agreements by making the qualifying criteria more flexible and by simplifying the process for employers. So we will be cutting the red tape. It is strangling our businesses, and we want to reduce it.

As I have mentioned, action on training is important. Skilled workers are workers who stay employed. In a society in transformation, with a plethora of new technologies, it is important that we help our workforce keep pace.

Over the next two years, we will be investing $500 million so that long-tenured workers who lose their job can receive extended income benefits while they are in longer-term training for new employment opportunities. This investment will allow earlier access to regular EI benefits for workers who use some or all of their severance package to purchase skills upgrading for themselves.

We will increase the funding for training paid to the provinces and territories by $1 billion over two years.

In addition, we will make another investment of $500 million for a strategic training and transition fund to meet the needs of persons who do not qualify for the training offered through employment insurance. I remind you that we have also provided for special measures for the self-employed. We will examine in particular the improvements that can be made to maternity leave.

We shall of course continue to pay particular attention to those older workers who, as they approach a well-earned retirement, see their job disappear and their industry hard hit. Some people are having a hard time. I am thinking among others of the forestry workers in parts of Quebec. We will support them: we will be at their side to help them through. Since 2007, 4,000 Canadians have received assistance through the targeted initiative for older workers, which is an effective federal-provincial partnership. But we are going to do more, because the present situation is very demanding.

We are going to invest an additional $20 million. We will repeat this over the next three years for this initiative, which is working well and yielding good results. We will also broaden the eligibility criteria so that larger communities with populations of up to 250,000 can benefit from it.

Societies seeking a better future must equip the next generation with the means to acquire knowledge and experience. Over the coming summers, we are going to invest an additional $20 million to provide more work experience for students across the country.

We are putting in place nearly $8.3 billion worth of measures. They were passed yesterday. Obviously, I supported them, as did all my colleagues on this side of the House. If we take appropriate measures to keep people employed, the crisis will have less of an effect. Even before the eye of the economic hurricane reaches our borders, we want to act as a catalyst and be ready to meet this crisis head on. Accordingly, in addition to the $8.3 billion, we are setting up a community adjustment fund of $1 billion for the country to help the communities affected most by the economic crisis to restructure, to take control and to move forward in order to adjust and find new opportunities.

I am pleased that the official opposition supported our economic action plan, which breathes life and hope into our communities. Unfortunately, the people moving today's motion did not support our economic action plan. The New Democrats and the Bloc opposed the measures I have just enumerated, measures targeting workers, seniors, our youth and training. We have measures that cover everyone. These are not just fancy words. We also have specific targeted measures and we want to put them in place as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the Bloc and the New Democrats voted against these measures.

We want to help the unemployed and older workers to find new jobs. This is why we support the economic action plan and why we will continue to make real efforts for the workers and the employers of our country.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the rules guiding the notional surplus in EI, $45 billion to $50 billion, indicate that two years of surplus should be kept and the excess drawn down through reduced premiums or improvements to the benefit plan. If anything, we have been asking for EI premiums to be reduced.

I think the member may have inadvertently misled the House. He just said that his government has frozen EI premiums, which should normally go down, and then he said that is a stimulus. If we do not decrease EI premiums, then we are taking dollars away from employees and employers and that is anti-stimulative, not stimulative. The member said it is $4.5 billion of stimulus. I think he better explain himself, because I think he has actually flipped it on its head and has it backwards.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me an opportunity to explain how the measures in our economic action plan enable workers and employers to breathe more easily. At this point, we want to provide some oxygen to our employers who are dealing with an uncertain economic situation.

I am pleased to inform my colleague that the rate of contribution to employment insurance is at the lowest it has been since 1982 and will remain unchanged until 2010. I am also pleased to say that, by maintaining rates at this level, we will be in a position to inject $4.5 billion. This money will remain in the pockets of employers and employees.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question with regard to the two-week waiting period.

Just yesterday, 1,200 people were fired from their jobs at the Windsor assembly plant in my riding. This was a devastating blow not only to those workers but to the community, because each one of those 1,200 jobs actually created 7 other jobs.

I would like to know the benefit of making a worker wait a two-week period when bills are due on a certain date. The deadline to pay a credit card bill or make a mortgage payment, or pay university or college fees does not change. People have expenses for their children and they need to put food on the table. Why keep the two-week waiting period? Why not provide money to workers right away, especially workers in places like Windsor where it takes many weeks to get employment insurance because of the lack of support services the government has provided.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, this allows me the opportunity to acknowledge the outstanding work of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada in ensuring that those who need their benefits receive them as quickly as possible. I can assure the member of my full cooperation as these people are forced to face such hardship, in order to ensure that they receive their benefits as soon as possible. These are benefits they are entitled to and have paid into.

I am nevertheless surprised that my colleague would ask me a question about workers. Yesterday, this same member had the chance to rise in this House to support the measure, like the one I just mentioned, through which nearly $200 million would serve to extend work-sharing programs to keep Canadians employed. With a package of measures worth $8.3 billion for workers before the House, when he could have stood up to support those measures, how is it that he did not do as my government colleagues did, and that he chose not to support them?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be able to speak in the House today and address a very important topic that concerns huge numbers of Canadians because we are in the workforce, at least most desire to be. We have had relatively low unemployment over the course of a number of years. In anticipation of what lies ahead, I think our government has a very good program and approach at such a time.

The employment insurance program figures very largely in this government's economic action plan that we introduced in budget 2009. I thank the hon. member for raising the subject of the EI program for this House's discussion today.

As we all know, we are in the midst of a worldwide recession. We have said this before and it bears repeating: Canada is better prepared than almost any other country to weather that storm. Nonetheless, we will be sideswiped and we will feel the effects of it. Canadians in my constituency and in the constituencies of most members in the House are concerned about their jobs and their livelihoods.

It is our role as a federal government to help Canadians by creating as many jobs as possible and providing the financial protection to those who are at risk or who will unfortunately lose their jobs.

After an unprecedented cross-country consultation with stakeholders, individual Canadians and provincial and territorial counterparts, our government has developed a very comprehensive economic action plan to stimulate the economy and to support Canadians and their families during this period of global downturn and global economic uncertainty.

The plan was developed for Canadians in consultation with Canadians and it reflects, to remarkable degree, a consensus among those various stakeholders and stakeholder groups across the country. In our economic action plan, we are supporting Canadians by launching the Canada skills and transition strategy, which will help Canadian workers and their families through a three-pronged approach: to strengthen benefits for workers, to enhance the availability of training, and to keep the EI rates low for 2009 and 2010.

We are proposing to temporarily invest an unprecedented $8.3 billion in the Canada skills and transition strategy—and I say that again because that is very huge, very significant, this unprecedented investment of $8.3 billion in the Canada skills and transition strategy.

Central to that strategy is the employment insurance program. Our strategy proposes improvements to the employment insurance program that focus on meeting the greatest need right now, improving the duration of EI benefits to support those facing challenges in looking for work, and ensuring adequate support for retraining. That is the route that Canadians have asked us to take. That is the route they want us to take at this time.

Employment insurance figures largely in those consultations and in the development of our strategy for a way ahead. We looked at a number of ways that the EI program could be improved, and one of the areas was the two-week waiting period that all EI claimants in receipt of regular and special benefits must serve at the beginning of their benefit period. I take it that the members are listening closely at this point, because I know questions have been coming up on this over the course of the morning.

Before contemplating the removal of that two-week waiting period, as has been suggested by the hon. member who proposed this, it is important to examine its purpose. The concept of the waiting period was first introduced in the founding unemployment legislation of 1940, and the two-week waiting period has been a key feature of the EI program ever since 1971. We could well liken it to the deductible portion in private insurance. This is its history.

Now let us look at its relevance for us today, at this period of time. It ensures that EI resources are focused on workers dealing with significant gaps in employment. If we removed this aspect of the EI program, claims would not be processed any more quickly. In fact, it might take longer as there would be an uptake or a significant increase in volumes that would put further pressure on our EI service standards.

Protecting the integrity of the EI program is paramount so that it is there for workers when they need it. The two-week waiting period is necessary for verifying the claims, to ensure that those who are eligible to receive EI get the benefits they deserve as quickly as possible.

We need also to consider that removing the two-week waiting period may not help those most in need of additional benefits. While removing the two-week waiting period would result in an additional payment of two weeks for claimants who do not use their full entitlement, it would not provide assistance to those workers who exhaust their EI benefits. It would simply start and end their benefits two weeks earlier.

Let us now look at the cost for a moment. What would it cost to eliminate the two-week waiting period? It would cost over $1 billion annually, and implementing that costly measure would inevitably result in higher premiums for workers and for employers. At such a time in our economy, increased EI premiums are the last thing that workers and employers need. Therefore, we believe we need to have this approach, which we think much better meets the needs of Canadians.

It is interesting to note that the former Liberal minister of human resources, Jane Stewart, had this to say about the two-week waiting period:

The two week waiting period is like a deductible in an insurance program. It is there for a purpose.

That is in the Hansard record of June 13, 2003, and from a Liberal minister at that. Therefore, our position on the two-week waiting period is no different from the previous Liberal government's position.

As was previously said in the House, we are backed up by Mr. David Dodge, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada. On December 18, Mr. Dodge appeared on the CTV Newsnet program, Mike Duffy Live. Mike is now, of course, a senator in the other place. However, on that occasion, December 18, when asked whether eliminating the two-week waiting period for EI was an expenditure worth making, Mr. Dodge responded forcefully. He said,

The answer is no. [Removing or eliminating that two-week waiting period] would probably be the worst waste of money we could make...because there's a lot of churn in the labour market, just normal churn.

Mr. Dodge said also,

That two weeks is there for a very good reason...The real issue is that some of these people are going to be off work for a rather long period of time

We agree with the comments of the former Governor of the Bank of Canada.

That is why we are proposing to extend nationally the benefits of the current five-week pilot project that until now has only been provided in certain regions with the highest unemployment rates. This extension will provide regular claimants in regions not currently receiving additional EI benefits with five extra weeks of benefits.

In addition, we propose to increase the maximum duration of EI benefits available under the EI program to 50 weeks from the current 45 weeks. That measure would provide financial support for a longer period to unemployed Canadians who would otherwise have exhausted their benefits. That amounts to a whole lot and is a significant thing for the constituents ofSaskatoon—Wanuskewin, whom it is my privilege to represent. This means that with jobs perhaps being scarcer they would have more time to seek employment while still receiving EI.

In comparing the two approaches, removing the two-week waiting period versus providing extended benefits, our consultations clearly indicated that Canadians favour receiving the additional benefits.

Our proposed investments in the EI program cover a broad spectrum on both the benefits and the training side. It is an approach that we think best suits the needs of Canadians at this juncture in our economic situation and it meets the labour and economic needs of tomorrow.

Our government understands that unemployed Canadians are worried about putting food on the table and finding work to keep their homes and provide for their families. That is why, among other things, through our economic action plan we will help over 400,000 people benefit from an additional five weeks of EI benefits.

We will help 160,000 people, including long-tenured and older workers, get retrained to find a new job and put food on the table for their families.

We are making significant enhancements to the work-sharing program. In fact, today the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development announced important changes to work-sharing agreements under the EI program. We are extending the work-sharing agreements by 14 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks and providing greater flexibility in the qualifying criteria so more companies and workers can participate.

That is the goal of these work-sharing agreements, to help more Canadians continue working while their company is experiencing a temporary downturn.

Our economic plan was built by consulting with Canadians to help Canadians through these difficult times, and as such, our economic action plan supports Canadians and strengthens benefits for the unemployed.

While the NDP members like to propose uncosted and unaffordable solutions to the current economic crisis, our government is actually getting the job done at this unique time in the country's history.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think I heard the hon. member from across the aisle say that it would cost $1 billion a year to fund the extra two weeks. One billion dollars a year is a lot of money, but the government has stolen $57 billion from the EI fund. The amount of $57 billion equates to 57 years. That is a long time.

I would like to ask the hon. member how he expects families to survive that do not qualify for EI because the hours have not been reduced. They do not qualify for EI and they do not qualify for training. I would like the hon. member to tell me how these people are going to survive if they do not qualify for EI?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think somebody was interested in raising a point of order because of the kind of language that was used in the House. Talking about people stealing is rather unparliamentary, as the member knows. He may be new in the House, but I think he would at least be aware of that.

In response to his question, with regard to the program that we have put together in its totality in terms of the extension of the five weeks and the various other training programs that are in place, will do a good bit in terms of giving those who are unemployed the opportunity to re-enter the workforce with the training that is being made available. That is, of course, the best kind of program: to have employment so people can provide for their families and have the satisfaction and sense of dignity in which they get out on a daily basis.

In the meantime, the extension of EI benefits is a good thing and will help many unemployed people across the country, in my riding and in his riding as well.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Without taking the member's allotted time to speak, I will clarify the rules for the offended members. On opposition days, a member of the opposition party that proposed the motion asks questions first and the member from the party who has spoken asks questions last.

I will go to the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a $17 billion program and it generally operates in a range of about $2 billion, and the premium is about $100 million. Sent up is $100 million and sent down is $100 million.

The government has chosen to play a little fast and loose with it by saying that it is not going to raise premiums even though the costs of the program are going up. By not raising premiums, it is passing on an advantage to Canadians that they are not being taxed more and, therefore, that is part of the stimulus package.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has taken objection to this sleight of hand on the part of the government. I wonder whether the hon. member would be prepared to comment upon the attempt to describe this re-freeze of premiums as in fact a stimulus.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy listening to the member across the way in speeches and personal conversations. We have a certain rapport in this place. He is a credible member who works hard on behalf of his constituents. He comes up with some pretty good questions as well and I will respond to him with respect to the good question he asked.

If he would talk to, as he probably has to some degree and I would encourage him to do it again, businesses and workers in his riding about the nub of his question about whether premiums should be increased, I think he would come up with the answer that no, workers and employers do not want to have an increase in premiums at this time. It would be particularly hurtful and harmful if that were done. The government has made that choice. In effect, that is of benefit to all Canadians at this time who would be faced with this situation.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for a very brief question. He has 58 seconds.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question will be very brief. The last two Conservative speakers, once again completely out of touch with reality, did not read the motion, which is substantiated by extensive consultation and supported by over two million Canadian workers. In other words, it truly reflects what people want.

I would like to ask the member who they consulted to reach that conclusion. Or did they simply consult each other?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would turn the question back to the member. Who are the two million members that he refers to and what exactly did they say? Do we have a transcription?

However, we do know that in terms of the public forums that the federal government had, a broad consultation across the country, the consensus was nearly unanimous that there should not be increases of premiums, that there should be an extension at the other end. There was not the support for removing the two week waiting period.

The minister who was asked the question prior was very emphatic that there needs to be the two week waiting period and it would continue for the good of the program in the future. There has been broad consultation and the member well knows that.