Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to speak to a bill that is not very long in text, but it does mean a lot for a few people and for the members associated with this, the Canadian Forces and the reservists.
First, I congratulate all the speakers on bringing up the pertinent matters that surround this. As was pointed out in some of the research, approximately 60 people will qualify for this, costing the government just over $600,000. For those 60 in question, there is no doubt it is desperately needed. Similar attempts were made before but they were not successful. Now we have something on the table that just might provide for these people.
I assume again, like my colleagues, that everyone will support this bill to get it to committee. It will leave here after second reading, go to committee and return with amendments. We have already talked about some amendments from the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, and I will talk about them a little later. However, one thing I hope this bill will have is a greater degree of flexibility with which people are willing to address this.
If it is cut off at a certain point, in other words, if we are very strict about its regulations, very strict about how this is applied when it comes into force, then we will have missed a golden opportunity for a government bill such as Bill C-13.
It is not a very long bill. It is not extravagant. It is what we would normally see under private members' bills. However, it is a government bill and perhaps the government will be willing, if the spirit of this is to provide relief assistance to people in need of this, to amend it. There is a perfect situation where Canadian Forces members would be in need of this, especially for parental leave. We can exercise, and I ask all my colleagues to do this, a great degree of flexibility in amending this and allowing the committee to look at this in detail.
Let us take a look at the bill in and of itself, which is one of the greatest social policies over the past while, and there are several, when it comes to the EI legislation. One thing has been parental leave. This has been a fantastic social benefit for the entire social fabric of our nation. In my province and riding parental leave has become a great benefit for the people, especially for young people who are starting families. In a 52 week period, it allows them to claim 35 weeks to achieve an income at 55% of what they earn. It allows parents to spend time with their newly born child or adopted child.
Over the years, we have moved around in the margins of EI legislation. We have tweaked it here and there. No policy is perfect from the outset. Therefore, as social circumstances change, we make amendments or additions to the EI legislation. Some people in the House would like it to go much further than it does, others, not as much.
First, there are several things about the EI legislation that need to be addressed.
The first one is the waiting period. It has been a highly contentious issue in the House. Unfortunately many members of Parliament have used this as a wedge issue. It is unfair for us to do that because honest discussion gets buried under talking points and rhetoric. It is unfortunate because the two-week waiting period is too punitive in nature. The way it is set out people have to make a deposit, similar to insurance. When people have an accident, they claim insurance, and that deposit goes into it. That two-week waiting period allows for people to find other jobs. When the two weeks are up, they then can claim benefits.
The problem with that is it takes four to six weeks to receive benefits anyway. There is an administrative time by which one should receive the first EI cheque, but that changes based on the resources available in the public sector. If we eliminate the two-week waiting period, that gets reduced to about four weeks.
Remember that the reason it is important to go from six to less than four is that monthly payments are extremely high when it comes to mortgages, child care, car loans and the like. Now more so than before, both parents in a family are working and it is more important for people who lose their jobs or who are temporarily out of work to be able to get that first benefit cheque within that four-week period. It becomes absolutely punitive when people get behind on their monthly payments.
There is the other part of EI. Over the past two years, since the onset of the current recession, which we are now coming out of, we have talked a lot about how to reform EI legislation and make it more beneficial for people suffering because of the recession. One of the ways to do that is to allow more people into the system by providing easier ways to access the benefits upfront. That is what we call the upfront part of EI.
There are several ways of doing it and they have been widely discussed in the House and across the country. We could reduce the amount of hours needed to qualify from 420 in certain regions down to 360. We could also increase the amount of benefits paid; 55% to 60% is one of the measures. Of course, I have already talked about the elimination of the two-week waiting period.
In 2005 several pilot projects were initiated. They were especially beneficial for seasonal workers. It extended on the back end of EI benefits extra weeks to help fill in that area where people go from the end of their benefits to the beginning of their work period. We also made it the best 14 weeks. Effectively, we have eliminated the divisor rule which basically brought people's benefits down. Using the best 14 weeks obviously allowed people to receive more in benefits because of the way the formula works.
There was another thing done in a pilot project regarding the amount people could earn without being deducted EI payments. I thought this was very beneficial for many communities, and I have 170 communities in my riding. If a person is currently receiving EI benefits, 55% of what the person made when the person had a job, the person is allowed to make up to 40% before it is clawed back dollar for dollar.
That is very important. It allowed industries in smaller communities to avail of the workforce that was there on a very short-term basis and the workers were not penalized on their EI payments. They were allowed to sustain a certain standard of living. These pilot projects will expire at the end of this year. It is not germane to this particular bill, but please allow me this opportunity to say that we desperately need to extend these projects beyond 2010.
Furthermore, because we both have the same type of industries, I am sure that my hon. colleague from Avalon will agree that these should be made permanent especially when it comes to us in the fishing industry. We are about to face a crisis one of which perhaps we have never seen before. Come fall, when people are looking to claim EI and are not able to get the weeks to be able to sustain their living within their communities, the communities will be desperately in need. A lot of people will be moving out of desperation. A lot of people will be looking for social assistance out of desperation.
I would suggest that the government consider making an announcement now so that these people can rest assured that the pilot projects they benefit from will be extended for those on employment insurance. I suggest that we have a fulsome debate about it, because we tend to get whittled down to only talking points and wedge issues.
We must remember that this country's employment insurance system is a shining beacon of social policy for the rest of the world. It is modelled upon by other countries around the world. The United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union look to a lot of our social policies. Therefore, we should strengthen them given the fact that so many people benefit from them. I would expect all of us in this House to engage in a decent debate for that reason.
Some of the benefits the Conservative government has put through over the past little while relate to the benefit period being extended on the back end. I would like for it to go further, but let me deal with that for a moment.
A long-tenured worker gets extra weeks of EI on the end because right now the job market is not as robust as it used to be, and I say that mildly; perhaps it is the understatement of the day. That is what is being brought up in this debate on Bill C-13, which also looks at a smaller sector of the population.
Let me return to the point I made earlier. This is a thin bill but it is an important bill. We should be looking at having a greater degree of flexibility to allow more people into the system.
My hon. NDP colleague from Acadie—Bathurst plans to bring in amendments about police officers so that they too could benefit from this provision. I agree with that. We should be flexible and open to discussing that. Given the fact that they are required to report to duty, or they are pulled back into duty, we should be looking at how they are treated under the system. We have to remember that it is a 52-week period and they can claim up to 35 weeks of benefits, but that gets interrupted by the call to duty.
Let me juxtapose the two issues: proud soldiers, proud police officers if we wish, and Bill C-13. On the one hand there are proud soldiers and reservists who are being called for active duty and doing what they do best, and I am proud of them for doing that, and on the other hand there is one of the greatest social policies that we have seen in the last 50 or 60 years, meaning EI. Let us bring the two together and make the system flexible for those people. The bill itself is structured so that those people will have the flexibility by which they will receive benefits, and rightly so.
This is not just about EI, it is also about caregiving. Over the past 10 to 15 years greater elements of caregiving have been brought into the EI legislation, which was essential. We cannot get bogged down with just the details of numbers and qualification periods and hours worked, because it is not just about that. It is also about compassionate care. It is also about how caregivers can avail themselves of a system that would allow them to attain a standard of living and at the same time provide care for those they love.
In the next few weeks I will be introducing my private member's bill which would double the period that people could collect EI sick benefits. Right now that period is up to 15 weeks, which is really minuscule in nature. My bill would double the number of weeks that they could receive sick benefits. I am sure I will have an opportunity to discuss that at a later date.
I also want to talk about flexibility and this bill in committee. My hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona and my hon. colleague from Nickel Belt talked about retroactivity, and they made valid points. At this stage in the game the legislation refers to on or after declaring of the benefit period. Therein lies something that we should really consider.
Clause 4 indicates that these new rules would only apply to those who establish a benefit period on or after the day the bill receives royal assent. A rough estimate from research tells us that 60 people will qualify. That is going to bring in more. There is no doubt about it. The program costs around $600,000. It is going to cost significantly more if we infuse a degree of retroactivity.
We need to look at it vis-à-vis the soldiers who are currently serving overseas, because if we look at the situation, it is not just the soldiers who are serving overseas, even though they are rightly deserving of the benefits provided by the bill. We should also consider those active forces members who are at home. I think of one example that is near and dear to my heart, and that is 103 Search and Rescue in Gander. If we look at the five bases across the country, people in search and rescue are always on active duty. Search and rescue technicians, pilots, standby, maintenance crew are always on duty. There is no such thing as practising for these people. Whether they are in Comox, Winnipeg, Trenton, Greenwood or Gander, these people are on 24/7 active duty, and they too should be in line for these benefits, which they are.
I only bring that up because I would not want the focus of the debate to shift entirely to what is our overseas operations, and deservedly so. I would also like to debate the issue about that, because some people are talking about other parts of the forces that will be drawn into this, or other parts of active duty, such as the police officers, the RCMP. I believe some of the issues were brought up for those serving overseas, but we should also consider those serving at home.
Yes, this bill could widen in scope to a very large number of people, and it then would become an issue of financing. Is it affordable? Does it cost too much to cover all these people? I will leave that to a later debate, perhaps in committee where I am sure it will be hashed out, as well as report stage and third reading debates.
I do want to bring up another element of how this House works. When we pass a bill in principle and it goes to committee, it is restricted in nature. If an amendment is made that goes beyond the scope of the bill, then the amendment cannot be accepted. We sometimes forget that the will of the committee might be unanimous in saying that it does not matter that a particular amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill, that it should be accepted. All members of the committee agree with it and therefore it should go ahead, but that is not the point. The point is the Speaker has to rule on this. If the Speaker decides that the amendment is outside the scope and principle of the bill at second reading, it will not be accepted. These are the rules of the House, despite the will of the House of Commons. We must bear this in mind as we send the bill to committee.
One of the things that has not been discussed is that maybe we should have sent it to committee before second reading. In essence, if we want to make substantial amendments that go beyond the principle and scope of the bill, we could do that before the bill goes to second reading. That has not been discussed. I am assuming that we have got to the point where we will pass the bill and send it to committee after second reading. I just hope that some of these principled and well-intentioned amendments will be accepted without being outside the principle and scope of the bill.
This should be an interesting debate. I am sure there will be amendments galore. I am certainly willing to stand as a member of Parliament and entertain the amendments brought forward by the NDP and the Bloc. I think they are both substantial.
For the sake of those watching the debate, I would like to clarify exactly what we are talking about in the one minute I have left.
Parents have a 52-week window following the week when their child is born or adopted within which to access the 35 weeks of EI parental benefits. That is a 35-week benefit period within 52 weeks. It gets extended.
Canadian Forces members whose request for parental leave is deferred or who are recalled from parental leave due to requirements and obligations of the National Defence Act, or call to duty, are often unable to access EI parental benefits because of the limited eligibility window.
Therefore, clause 2 would extend the benefit period by a number of weeks, up to 52 weeks, corresponding to the number of weeks of their deferment or their recall to duty. That is what is very important because that precise number that when they are either called back to duty or deferred should be looked at within that benefit period. Clause 3 would extend that up to 104 weeks.
I implore all members to send this bill to committee. Let us vote yes on this.
