House of Commons Hansard #154 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was child.

Topics

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I hope to be given a more satisfactory answer for the workers in my riding than the one I received last May and this week. Every time the minister has had to explain how these employment insurance changes will affect workers, she plays the same old tune. I hope she will not do so this time.

Instead of again telling us that we have got it all wrong, can she explain what options EI recipients in my riding will have when they cannot find work either because the fishing season is over, or because plants have no more fish to process, or because the tourists are gone, or because restaurants, hotels and museums are empty, or because the school year is over, or because the fruits and vegetables have been picked? In short, we have a seasonal economy.

These are the workers' options. According to the changes proposed by the minister, they will have to accept any job and be paid 80% of their previous wages up to the sixth week, and then 70%. In Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, more than 80% of the jobs are seasonal, and all these workers will have to accept a 30% reduction in their income. Is the minister serious when she says that she will reduce my constituents' income by 30% this year, another 30% the following year, and yet another 30% the year after that? Does she really want to impoverish my constituents to that extent?

In the medium term, that measure can only have one consequence: the impoverishment of the whole region and the exodus of families to other parts of the country. There will not be enough people left to fish, to harvest and to welcome tourists. This is ridiculous.

Is the minister not aware of the impact of what she is proposing? With the cuts to Service Canada local knowledge is disappearing and this is already being felt. When my fellow citizens are asked to take jobs that are three hours away from their home, or else they may lose their benefits, it shows that public servants have ignored the geographical reality. That is the risk with centralization and this government is the one to blame for that. Does that not ring a bell with the minister?

Finally, the government is putting a stop to a pilot project designed to bridge the gap between the end of benefits and the beginning of the working season, in the spring. That project protected workers against the harsh reality of not having an income for a month or two. Is the minister able to understand the distress of people when there is simply no money coming in?

The change made to the working while on claim program is another joke. One wonders whether the minister really understands the issue. This measure targets the poorest in our society and the minister should be ashamed. What she will not say is that this measure is deterring many unemployed people from working part-time.

Because of all these changes, small and medium businesses will have a hard time keeping workers. People will simply leave the regions. This reminds me of the Conservative election campaign, in May 2011. Their slogan was “Power to the regions”. Is that their vision for our region?

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Conservative

Kellie Leitch ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, our top priorities are job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

Our government remains committed to providing temporary income support to unemployed Canadians who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own while they look for work or upgrade their skills.

However, if there is one thing that we should do better, it is matching Canadians with the jobs that are available in their communities.

We need to ensure that Canadians have access to and are skilled enough for the jobs that are being created. Full-time jobs have been increasing across many occupations and many industries. In fact, from July 2009 to May 2012, employment grew by more than 770,000 jobs. This represents the strongest growth by far among G7 countries. Of these 770,000 jobs, 90,000 are full-time positions. Statistics Canada indicates there were 250,000 job vacancies across the country last month.

What are we going to do to help unemployed Canadians find jobs?

Our government is committed to making targeted common-sense changes to the EI program that encourage Canadians to stay active in the job market either by working or looking for jobs and removing disincentives to work.

We will provide enhanced labour market information to claimants to support their job search efforts, including enhanced online job alerts. EI recipients will now get job postings twice a day for those chosen occupations within their community, as well as postings for jobs in related occupations in other geographic regions. This will enable them to make more informed decisions about how to conduct their job search.

We will also strengthen and clarify what is required of claimants who are receiving EI regular benefits. The definition of “suitable employment” will be based on a number of criteria, such as working conditions, hours of work and commuting time. Personal circumstances will also be taken into account. EI claimants will not be expected to take a job that is hazardous to their health or physically difficult for them to perform.

Many employers have said that they are facing significant skills and labour shortages and they need to have access to temporary foreign workers.

The government will ensure better coordination with the temporary foreign worker program and the EI program. We want to ensure that Canadians who are available and have the right skills have the first crack at these jobs. It only makes sense.

For people who are unable to find employment either because opportunities do not exist or they are not reasonably matched, EI will continue to be there for them as it always has been in the past.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's response is certainly a matter for thought, but I have a few questions.

The parliamentary secretary said that people would be offered appropriate employment, but the definition has been removed from the act. There seems to be a lot of discretion as to what “appropriate” actually means now. I would like to better understand that. Are we leaving it to the courts to decide or will the ministry propose a definition?

Also, if jobs are being offered within a reasonable distance, why is it that in my riding people have been offered jobs that are three, four or sixteen hours away from their homes and those are considered jobs that are within their region? I believe the change the Conservatives proposed was within an hour away from a person's home, but now we are talking about someone taking a ferry and travelling incredible distances to get a minimum wage job. How does that help increase the wealth of the regions? How does that help anyone really?

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Our government will continue to provide temporary financial assistance to unemployed Canadians who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own while they look for work or upgrade their skills.

We are also taking measures to match Canadians with the jobs that are available in their communities.

Our government's top priority is the economy, and we are proud of the 770,000 net new jobs that have been created since the end of the recession.

The member may not have heard this so I will repeat it. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, there will be job postings twice a day for chosen occupations within communities as well as postings for jobs that are related occupations in other geographic regions. People will be receiving those.

Our government is working to help Canadians find jobs in their local areas specific to their qualifications.

For those who need employment insurance, it will be there when they need it, as it always has been.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Minister of the Environment or the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment on the issue of subsoil fracturing, and more specifically hydraulic fracturing for shale gas.

In my riding of Drummond, and everywhere in Canada, this issue is raising questions among Canadians. First, on the greenhouse gas emissions balance sheet, is shale gas as polluting as coal, as some studies have shown? Second, are the chemicals used by the industry a threat to Canadians’ health? Because a good dozen chemicals appear to be carcinogenic, according to a study released by the United States. Will rural communities have their underground water, the source of their drinking water, contaminated? These are all questions we have had no answers to, and there are a lot of other questions I could tell you about.

In fact, the truth is that we know nothing about the real impact of this industry. We know nothing about the impact on Canadians’ health, and we know nothing about the impact on the environment or on our biodiversity. Why is this Conservative government closing its eyes to the practices of this industry?

The federal government must make protecting the public its absolute priority. That is what its priority should be. I especially hope the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment is not going to tell us this is under provincial jurisdiction. I will show you, based on all the legislation relating to this, that that is not the case.

First, there is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Then we have the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Species at Risk Act, and the Federal Sustainable Development Act. All of these acts are Canadian environmental protection legislation that exists and that we should have, precisely to protect Canadians’ environment.

In keeping with the division of powers, and in cooperation with the provinces, the territories, the First Nations, environmentalists, scientists and the populations concerned, it is important that the federal government live up to its responsibilities, do the studies and exhibit some leadership in this area, where a lot of questions are going unanswered.

The evidence can be found in a study by the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto dated 2012, confirming that this power system threatens our water reserves in Canada. The study says:

...neither the National Energy Board nor Environment Canada have yet raised any substantive questions about the ‘shale gale’ or its impact on water resources.

Ultimately, it could threaten drinking water in the regions affected. From what I know, water is a resource to which we must pay very close attention, and we must be fully aware of its importance. It is a vital need.

Another study stresses air pollution and this industry’s disastrous track record when it comes to greenhouse gases. It is apparently as polluting as coal.

This brings me to my question. What, exactly, is the government waiting for to require an immediate public study of shale gas and its impact on the environment and on health?

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Calgary Centre-North Alberta

Conservative

Michelle Rempel ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to be here at the adjournment proceeding hour, especially with my colleague from Simcoe—Grey, who seems to have amassed a lot of practice lately. It is good to be here tonight to chat about shale gas practices.

It is important to note that my colleague, in his original question, which was posed in the House on May 3 of this year, said:

Even though this is mainly a provincial matter, the minister has confirmed....

I am glad that my colleague does recognize that this particular issue is mainly a provincial matter. That said, there are several different initiatives in provincial jurisdictions that are happening on this topic right now. There is an online public registry, launched this past January in British Columbia. There is a strategic environmental assessment under way in the province of Quebec and a review being conducted in Nova Scotia. As well, the Government of Alberta has announced that public disclosure rules for chemical additives used in hydraulic fracturing are planned in the coming year.

As we have also talked about in the House, and the Minister of the Environment has spoken to this as well, Environment Canada has asked the Council of Canadian Academies to assess what is known about the potential environmental impacts from shale gas production.

As we have said several times in the House, we are looking forward to the results of this study. We are also working, as we always do, with our provincial counterparts on this important issue.

Here are some other undertakings that are happening across the country. Earlier this year the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers posted proactive rules for disclosure of fracturing fluids for its member companies.

Some other things that are interesting to note on our government's track record on the environment, especially when it comes to the health and safety of Canadians with chemicals, is our world-class chemical management plan. We have seen the assessment and listing of several thousand different chemicals, and this has been a great success. It has actually been looked at as a model internationally for something that has been very successful in managing chemicals in a very pragmatic, science-based and transparent way.

I will close with the first part of my colleague's statement, where he mentioned greenhouse gas emissions. The interesting thing to note in our most recent greenhouse gas emissions inventory, earlier this year, is that even though Canada only produces 2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions in total, we have been very active in pursuing a sector-by-sector regulatory approach to pragmatically reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are produced in a way that still balances real results with economic growth.

In that greenhouse gas emissions inventory, we saw, for the first time, the stabilization of the growth of greenhouse gas emissions while the economy grew.

Also earlier this year, our government posted regulations for greenhouse gas emissions for the coal-fired electricity sector. This is a very good thing for this country, and it was done in a transparent way. It was done in a way to ensure that we have supply of energy, as well as being cognizant of pricing of electricity, again focusing on a balance with real results.

As the minister also mentioned in the House earlier this year Canada is well on its way, over 50% of the way, to making our Copenhagen targets, which is a great positive thing.

I thank the member for his question, and I look forward to working with him on the environment committee this year.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my distinguished colleague for her answer, in spite of the fact that I could talk about this for hours, because a lot of things have been said on this subject that are not true. However, I will be brief.

I am going to read part of a press release issued by Environment Canada:

Water use and contamination are at the top of the list of environmental concerns surrounding shale gas exploration in Canada, Environment Minister...was told earlier this year in an internal memorandum released on Monday.

What that says is not complicated. It means there is no transparency. Studies are done on the sly and serve the needs of the corporations, once again.

We are talking about greenhouse gases. If we want to combat greenhouse gases, what we specifically must not do is develop shale gas, because it is as polluting as coal.

Does my distinguished colleague, the parliamentary secretary, mean to say that we need to move toward more coal and more shale gas? Is that her solution for combatting greenhouse gases?

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that natural gas is actually a very clean-burning fuel. When used properly, it can actually help complement Canada's energy production, while reducing our greenhouse gas emissions profile.

I do beg to differ with my colleague's comment because the government does see natural gas as a component of our country becoming a clean energy superpower. I do differ with him on that opinion.

I would like to re-emphasize that shale gas development and regulation is mainly a matter of provincial interest and provincial jurisdiction. That said, Environment Canada has conducted the study that I mentioned earlier and we are monitoring this issue closely.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

September 27th, 2012 / 6:50 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, who will once again respond to these questions.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to return to the House today to speak about an important subject that affects all Canadians. I am referring to one of our most precious social safety nets: employment insurance.

Last spring, when the session was in full swing, I asked two questions of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour. The questions were about employment insurance, and I think that no time is better than the present to once again attempt to get answers, since this topic is again the fodder for our debates in the House.

I will therefore ask the following question. Bill C-38 on the budget proposes to repeal the clause under which a worker seeking employment is not obligated to accept a job where the working conditions, including the rate of compensation, are less favourable than those offered by good employers. In short, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development wants to lower salaries and the buying power of this country. Why are the Conservatives waging war on workers, when they drive our economy?

We all know that Bill C-38 has now become law and that the changes made to the legislation have come into effect or will soon do so.

Since the bill was passed into law, we have received thousands of calls and much correspondence from employees, the unemployed and employers who not only say that they are concerned about the new measures, but who also confirm that they only aggravate the already precarious situation in which the poor of our country find themselves.

The reason for this concern is quite simple: the new definition of suitable employment announced by the minister is quite illogical. To begin with, the new categories of unemployed persons concocted by the minister's team now put pressure on job seekers, who after a certain time will have to agree to whatever job comes their way, with a salary of up to 30% less than their average compensation. That, therefore, means less money in the pockets of workers and their families.

These measures will put pressure on seasonal employers, who will lose skilled and specialized labour because unemployed workers will be obligated to find other employment before their seasonal work resumes. This will be more costly for businesses as they will have to continuously retrain a new labour force that will not return.

Also, the possible devaluation of skills must be taken into consideration. Nothing in the Conservatives' budget referred to training and support in order to place the unemployed in their area of expertise. In short, workers will find themselves forced to work at jobs that in no way relate to their qualifications. Skills and productivity will be lost. I cannot see how an unemployed welder will contribute as much to the Canadian economy with the salary of a packager.

The Conservatives boast that they are focusing on kick-starting the economy and creating jobs. Can the minister explain on which economic principles and which studies her department relied to create this reform and to make the claim that it would create jobs and wealth?

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Conservative

Kellie Leitch ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to respond to the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on the subject of employment insurance and the support it provides to unemployed Canadians looking for work.

Our government remains committed to providing temporary financial assistance to unemployed Canadians who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, while they are seeking a job or building their skills.

Thanks to the strong leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, the rate of economic activity continues to be strong in 2012. The number of full-time jobs has increased across the country. From July 2009 to March 2012, more than 770,000 net new jobs were created with 90% being full-time positions. This represents the strongest growth by far among G7 countries.

But we cannot rest on our laurels.

Our economic well-being depends on our ability to meet growing labour market challenges. One of the challenges we are facing is a skills shortage.

Statistics Canada tells us that there are about 250,000 job vacancies across the country each month, so what are we doing to help unemployed Canadian workers find jobs?

We will match Canadians with available jobs to help them return to work more quickly.

One way we will be doing this is by making it easier for Canadians to find work available in their local communities. This includes simple but effective methods, like enhancing job alerts to Canadians receiving EI regular benefits. The enhanced job alerts will provide Canadians receiving employment insurance information about job opportunities within their local area that are within their occupation and related occupations. This will also ensure that Canadians have the first opportunity to fill jobs.

We are also clarifying what suitable employment is, as well as what constitutes a reasonable job search. These terms will be clearly defined in regulations, with local employment opportunities being a key consideration.

In addition, there is a new, permanent national approach to calculating EI benefits that will be aligned with local labour market conditions. The local unemployment rate will be used to determine the number of best weeks when calculating the value of the weekly EI benefit.

The purpose of these changes is to give unemployed workers more tools, to help them get back into the labour market and to direct resources to where they are needed most.

I ask all members of the House to support our economic action plan that is clearly delivering world-leading economic results.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, during that same intervention in the House, I also asked the minister another question. I asked the Conservatives why they decided to hide these changes in an omnibus bill, so they would be totally shielded from any real consultation.

I also wanted to know why the Conservatives are not dealing with the real problems that affect day-to-day life, such as delays at Service Canada and the lack of EI benefits for unemployed Canadians who nonetheless contributed to the employment insurance plan. I would like to hear more from the minister on this issue, because I think the Conservatives are on the wrong track.

Once again, their incompetence in managing social programs proves that the Conservatives are not champions of the economy but rather they are champions of undermining the fabric of society. The Conservatives are making senseless cuts to services and they are jeopardizing Canada’s still fragile economic recovery.

The NDP is proposing practical solutions that will improve the lives of Canadians and ensure that our children inherit a country that is fairer and more prosperous. I hope the minister will drop the Conservatives’ predictably narrow-minded attitude and consider our suggestions before the EI reforms drive Canadian families further into poverty.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, our top priorities are job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

When Canada faces labour and skills shortages, it simply makes sense to try to reconnect Canadians with those opportunities.

We want to provide more labour market information to claimants, including online job postings. This information will help them to make better informed decisions about job opportunities and the skills required. We are looking to make sure that Canadians have jobs and that they are able to keep them.

I have asked many times in the House why the NDP members continue to vote against our measures to help Canadians who are unemployed. Why does the NDP oppose our economic action plan that has already created 770,000 net new jobs?

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)