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.
