Finance Committee on June 5th, 2012

[Mark Hodgson, Senior Policy Analyst, Labour Markets, Employment and Learning, Department of Finance]

I think most of the discussion has focused on the possible effect of the clause in the bill that gives the Canada Employment Insurance Commission the authority to make regulations, but that's as far as this legislation goes. We wouldn't have anything to add to the discussion about the potential regulations that may follow should this bill be passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Ms. McLeod, do you have anything further to add?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

I just have to repeat the line. For those who are unable for find employment, employment insurance will be there for them as it always has. I would really encourage the opposition to please not create a concern with misinformation that might be spread.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. We'll go back to Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes. I would just like to clarify my comments for my colleague. I think I was perhaps misunderstood, because what I said was that it didn't make sense for a welder from New Brunswick to take a local job quickly, perhaps in the service sector, which did not use their skills as a welder. Perhaps if they had the support of EI to allow them to do a proper job search, they might prefer to go out west and find a job requiring their skill. Sometimes taking a quick job—perhaps with lower wages—out of one's skill area wastes the skills that one has. If that person had waited and perhaps looked further afield, they might have found a job in their skill area.

I just wanted to correct the record because I think the member opposite misheard what I had said and in fact said the opposite of what I had offered as part of the debate.

Thank you for allowing me to clarify that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have Monsieur Caron, and then Mr. Hoback.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Ms. McLeod said we were spreading misinformation. That is not true. I am voicing the concerns expressed by the people in my riding, employers and employees, who read the statements, who analyzed what the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said in her announcement. When she says that an EI recipient risks losing their benefits if they don't accept a suitable job in Matane, even though they live 90 kilometres away in Rimouski, then it is a fact. And to say that the EI program is staying precisely the same as it was before is false. When the minister made her announcement 10 days ago, it was very clear that the conditions for employment insurance would change completely.

I have yet to hear the government deny or refute what Minister Valcourt said about an EI recipient having to accept a job that paid 70% of their previous wage, or risk losing their benefits and, should they subsequently lose that job, having to accept yet another job at 70% of 70% of their original wage. That is the very reason we have minimum wage legislation. When a government minister makes that kind of statement—in other words, this measure would lead to declining wages—it's quite a powerful argument.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

We've been through this how many times? I know that Ms. McLeod really explained the government position fairly well.

I come from Saskatchewan, and Mr. Jean comes from Fort McMurray in Alberta. If you look at what's going on out there, you will see the opportunity that we're missing because we don't have enough people. We see this over and over again.

Here's a real-life story from a couple of years ago of an employer who went out of Saskatchewan to find employees. That employer went into parts of Ontario looking for mechanics, but the potential employees would wait until their employment insurance ran out before talking to the employer.

It comes back to trying to find a balance in the proper programs, encouraging people to go back to work when there are jobs but still supporting them when there are no jobs. That's really what this legislation is doing. To distort this or to put fear into people's eyes or ears, that all of a sudden if they apply for employment insurance it won't be there for them, or they're going to have to take a job that doesn't meet their needs or requirements.... It's been blown out of proportion by the opposition so badly.

The reality is that this is just a rebalancing of employment insurance to make it what it is: unemployment insurance. It's to make sure that when there is a job, people actually take that job, instead of sitting there for 52 weeks or 42 weeks or 36 weeks—whatever the appropriate number of weeks is, depending on where they live. It's actually there to encourage people to get back to work, because when they go back to work, they create other jobs, and that spinoff effect results in more people being hired.

As I said, we need employees in Saskatchewan. We're sitting on an unemployment rate of 4%, which basically means that everybody's employed. I know that for Mr. Jean it's much the same in Alberta. We need people; there's no question about it.

So when there's talk about a work shortage, tell me where it is, because I don't see it in Saskatchewan. In fact, it's the opposite; it's a worker shortage. We've been working with the immigration minister. We've been looking at all sorts of ideas to help solve this. The reality is that changing employment insurance is one way to help solve this. The premier of Saskatchewan has stated that himself.

This is a positive change for the country as a whole. It needs to happen, and we need to get on with it. So I suggest we move to the vote now, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, I have three more speakers. I have a list that keeps growing. We have this shadowy figure that has crept into the room—it's called the straw man—and crept into this debate. I think we're sort of arguing against each other, but we're also arguing against what we think others are presenting.

I again will return to my main theme this evening, which is that we should do a division, members should state their positions and parties should put on the record where they stand, and we should vote on the clauses.

It's a good debate. It's an interesting debate. I am very much enjoying it. I think that at 10 o'clock on Tuesday night I may want to be doing something different, but it's a good debate. But I'm not really seeing the point of it—I guess that's it.

So I have three members: Ms. Glover, Monsieur Mai, and Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

A point of order, Mr. Jean?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Yes. Your eloquent speech has convinced me. Take my name off the list.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All right. Thank you.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

My name is on the list, but we can move to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Monsieur Mai, did my eloquent speech convince you to move to the vote?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

It has.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All right. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Now, because we have an amendment on clause 605, I will call clause 603.

(Clause 603 agreed to on division)

(Clause 604 agreed to)

All right. That's unanimous.

With respect to clause 605, I will ask someone in the NDP to move amendment NDP-47.

(On clause 605)

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I move NDP amendment number 47.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

I have a ruling with respect to NDP-47.

Bill C-38 amends the Employment Insurance Act by replacing subsections 27(2) and 27(3) with a modified subsection 27(2), which defines employment that arises as a result of a labour dispute as not being suitable. The amendment attempts to leave intact the original subsection 27(2) but replace subsection 27(3) with a provision stipulating a set of factors upon which workers are not to be discriminated against.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the opinion of the chair, therefore, the introduction of this list of factors is a new concept to clause 605 that is beyond the scope of Bill C-38 and is therefore inadmissible.

That deals with the amendment. I will therefore call clause 605.

(Clause 605 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 606 to 619 inclusive agreed to on division)

Thank you.

I thank our officials for being here.

I'm actually going to take another health break, unless, Ms. Nash, you want to take the chair for 10 minutes...?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

A break is fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you want a break?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, I'm thinking of our staff and interpreters and everyone.