Debates of April 30th, 2013

Criminal Code

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as Bill C-394, presented by my colleague the member for Brampton—Springdale, reaches third reading.

Bill C-394 amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence in relation to organized crime, namely recruiting a person to join a criminal organization. The NDP supports this bill as part of a response to the problem of gang recruitment, particularly of young people.

Upon reading the text, we find that the bill was amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. One amendment adds the concept of coercion to the new offence. The others are designed to ensure consistency between the English and French versions, and in the terminology used in the Criminal Code. The bill was examined for three hours by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

As a member of the committee, I had an opportunity to hear valuable and thought-provoking testimony, and to question witnesses. I also had an opportunity to take part in interesting exchanges with my colleagues on the committee. The phenomenon of recruitment, mainly of young people, by gangs presents a real problem, which calls for a balanced public safety approach, that is an approach combining prevention and enforcement.

In the NDP, we believe that this bill contains part of the answer to the problem, but in committee we pointed out that the creation of a new offence amending the Criminal Code with the addition of section 467.111 is the outcome of a private member’s bill, not a government bill. The government should make changes to its policy to deal with street gangs. Let me pursue this point further.

The street gang phenomenon is so important in our country that the government should adopt a strategy to deal with these criminal organizations. The government should find effective solutions for the problem of recruitment by criminal organizations.

Representatives of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada came to testify before the committee. This Canada-wide organization provides guidance and assistance to young Canadians who are marginalized or in difficulty, work that is essential to social cohesion in our country.

I would like to quote Marlene Deboisbriand, vice-president of that organization, regarding the importance of these clubs in Canada:

Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada is a leading provider of quality programs that support the healthy development of children and youth. Our association of over 100 clubs reaches over 200,000 children, youth, and their families across the country. We are in 500 community locations from coast to coast to coast.

These representatives emphasized the need for funding for prevention programs:

We are not opposed to Bill C-394. Our concerns are mostly related to the need for enhanced prevention efforts....and rehabilitative programs for youth who want to rebuild their lives outside gangs.

The testimony given by Rachel Gouin of Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada was very compelling. She addressed three important points.

First of all, is it very important that public authorities take a comprehensive approach to the complex phenomenon of the recruitment of young people into gangs. Targeted punitive measures like this one, combined with adequate police action to catch people who are recruiting, would be best. However, these measures must be accompanied by programs and social services geared towards housing assistance, mental health support and employment assistance.

Secondly, recruiters are sometimes children or teenagers themselves. As Ms. Gouin said in her testimony, the scope of this bill does not apply to them. Children and youth have their own criminal justice system, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The third point, which is related to the first, is the importance of continuity of funding for prevention programs that target both those likely to do the recruiting and those likely to be recruited.

The Youth Justice Services Funding Program helps the provinces establish rehabilitation services for these people. It is regrettable that budget cuts have affected this program.

The presentation by Manitoba's attorney general was also very important. The NDP paid close attention to what he said. Our only amendment to the bill, presented in committee, came out of this evidence. The attorney general said:

...we believe Bill C-394 could be improved by being applied to anyone recruiting in places where youth are expected to gather, the very places I think all of us want to keep safe, such as schools and schoolyards, community centres, friendship centres, and parks—places where we want it to be safe for young people to go.

The NDP presented an amendment concerning sentencing. It would ensure that the court take into consideration elements of proof establishing the recruitment of someone under 18 into a gang, near a school or community centre, for example, as aggravating factors. Our excellent amendment was hotly debated and the Conservatives unfortunately decided to reject it.

The NDP has always been proactive when it comes to public safety. On the one hand, we want more money for crime prevention programs. On the other, we want police forces to have the resources needed to adequately protect communities across Canada. It is therefore important to continue to collaborate with the provinces, the territories and first nations.

In closing, this bill is a solution to the problem of recruitment by gangs, but it is not the only one.

We support this bill. However, we are asking the government to do more. An approach that strikes a balance between repression and prevention must always prevail when it comes to public safety.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on Bill C-394 and the issue of gang recruitment. I had the privilege of sitting in on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights while it considered this legislation, and I will expand on some of the issues discussed in those meetings.

I speak, I believe, for all members of the Liberal Party when I say that I want to deter youths from joining gangs. Indeed, if this legislation served any preventive end, we would gladly endorse it. However, not only does Bill C-394 fail to address the fundamental reasons that youths join gangs—the root causes, if I dare say that—but it also would employ a mandatory minimum penalty, which the Liberal Party opposes in principle.

I raise the root causes of youth gang involvement as an issue, because the government acknowledges the problems but it fails to provide solutions either in Bill C-394 or elsewhere. For example, the website of the Department of Public Safety lists risk factors relative to youth gang involvement and includes the following as major risks: limited attachment to the community, over-reliance on anti-social peers, poor parental supervision, alcohol and drug abuse, poor educational or employment potential and a need for recognition and belonging. Yet Bill C-394 does not address any of these. In fact, the government is missing in action on things like youth unemployment and access to education, things it could take proactive measures to correct.

With regard to violence among aboriginals, public safety's website explains:

The increase in gang violence and crime in some Aboriginal communities has been attributed in part to an increasing youth population, inadequate housing, drug and alcohol abuse, a high unemployment rate, lack of education, poverty, poor parenting skills, the loss of culture, language and identity and a sense of exclusion.

As Idle No More and similar movements demonstrate, the government is out of touch with the needs of aboriginal communities. If it took those needs seriously, we could begin the process of reconciliation. We could address the social problems plaguing first nations. We could give aboriginal youth access to education and opportunity. Instead, by ignoring these problems, we further the cycle of despair that makes gang life attractive to youth.

It is interesting to have this discussion in light of the Conservatives' attack ad on the member for Papineau. They criticize him for being a camp counsellor, a rafting instructor and a drama teacher. If we want kids to feel included in their communities, to have a sense of belonging and purpose, we ought to have more camp counsellors, more rafting instructors, more teachers seeking to make a difference in the life of a child, not attacking these sorts of things as useless pursuits unbecoming of a leader. However, the government buries its head in the sand and refuses to acknowledge that preventing crime involves addressing tough issues beyond the Criminal Code.

I can assure the House that youths are not joining gangs because they believe their activities are lawful, nor do gangs recruit because they believe it is legal to do so. This is the problem with the Conservative approach to crime. Everything is a matter for the criminal law, and every incident provides a pretext to legislate.

As was said by the member for Toronto Centre, “when the only tool we have in our toolbox is a sledgehammer, everything starts to look like a rock”. For Conservatives, criminal law is all about punishment. By adding new offences and penalties and, in some cases, duplicating existing offences and penalties, the Conservatives attempt to regulate on the back end, after the crimes have been committed. This ignores the fact that there are other elements to criminal justice such as prevention, rehabilitation of the offender and reintegration into society, let alone addressing the underlying causes of crime.

As I mentioned, I may be accused of perhaps committing sociology on this. Let there be no mistake. Bill C-394 deals with gang recruitment only on the back end once it has occurred. I submit that by then, it is way too late.

As I have indicated, this issue is already addressed by the Criminal Code. Former justice minister Anne McLellan said in this place, upon the introduction of what is currently in the Criminal Code that we are seeking to amend today, the following:

We know that successful recruitment enhances the threat posed to society by criminal organizations. It allows them to grow and to more effectively achieve their harmful criminal objectives. Those who act as recruiters for criminal organizations contribute to these ends both when they recruit for specific crimes and when they recruit simply to expand the organization's human capital.

In other words, we knew when introducing what was already in the code that recruitment was an issue, is an issue, and we put in place offence language that captured it. Thus, while the regime in the code at present may not use the word “recruitment”, the intention is clear in the record and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that prosecutions for recruitment are not happening because of some legislative loophole.

Indeed, as it is proposed, the bill will actually add to the problem by putting in a mandatory minimum penalty. International studies corroborate what even Justice Canada has found, that mandatory minimums do not deter crime. Among other things, mandatory minimums remove prosecutorial and judicial discretion. They lead to prison overcrowding. They lead to more crimes in prison and more crimes outside of prison. They contribute to a clogging of the courts, resulting in accused persons being set free. They are, as I indicated in my question to the member earlier, constitutionally suspect. Mandatory minimums have prejudicial consequences, particularly on aboriginal peoples and minority communities.

I know colleagues in the NDP have argued that the mandatory minimum in this bill is light and, therefore, acceptable, in their view. We take a different approach, which is that there is no need for adding something that could lead, in the right fact situation, to this legislation being overturned. This just is not smart legislating.

However, if I were to address the Conservatives' inability to legislate intelligently, I would certainly run out of time. In fact, we might be here all night. Instead, I will focus on one shortcoming relevant here, which is the failure to vet bills for constitutionality. Much has been made of that in the House and, in particular, by my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, of the obligation of the Minister of Justice, under the Department of Justice Act, to review government legislation for compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The minister, time and time again, has said that his bills are constitutional, yet time and time again the provisions are struck down and the government is called to account for its failure to comply with the supreme law of the land. Not only does legislating in such a reckless way risk the statute being struck, it also clogs up the courts with challenges that could have been avoided. It also costs the taxpayers, who bear the burden of defending the government. For a government that claims accountability, why is it not accountable to the charter and its statutory obligations? For a government that prides itself on fiscal restraint, why is it wasting taxpayer money?

One may wonder why I am raising this issue when the obligation for a charter check is only on government bills, not on private members' bills like Bill C-394. The answer is that the government has been increasingly using private members' bills to legislate through the back door. If this bill was so important, why was it not included in the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10? Why has the minister not introduced it on his own accord? Surely, if it were so necessary, the minister could have made this change to a government bill and it would have passed through the House much faster. Indeed, by using the private member bill route, the government minimizes House debate and circumvents the required charter review.

We must address the cycle of poverty and homelessness that affects too many children in the country. Where is the government on that? We must say to ourselves that if children are to be the priority, maybe we need more camp councillors, rafting instructors and drama teachers. What they do not need is a government that says it cares, throws a band-aid on the problem that will not hold and then pats itself on the back for having done anything at all. Bill C-394 would be just that, and that is why the Liberal Party will vote no on this bill.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-394, criminal organization recruitment, which aims to address the important issue of gang recruitment. Combatting organized crime has been a long-standing commitment of this government, and I would like to thank the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale for introducing Bill C-394, a bill that would very much continue to build on these efforts.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has reported this bill back to the House with a minor amendment, specifically relating to consistency between the English and French versions of the Criminal Code, and one additional amendment. Before I go on to address these amendments in more detail, allow me to say that this bill makes a strong statement against the serious problem of organized crime groups in this country.

Bill C-394 aims to ensure that the Criminal Code explicitly prohibits recruiting another person into a criminal organization. It does so by proposing a new indictable offence: actively recruiting, soliciting, encouraging or inviting another person to join a criminal organization for the purpose of enhancing the ability of that criminal organization to facilitate or commit indictable offences. The person doing the recruiting would not need to be a member of the criminal organization to which the individual is being recruited. This offence would be punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment for six months if the individual recruited is under the age of 18.

The committee heard from many witnesses on this issue, and many of them emphasized just how important Bill C-394 would be in the effort to prevent youth from joining criminal organizations in the first place. Organized crime groups often target young people to conduct many of their activities, in part because they know that if a young person is caught, he or she will be treated more leniently by the justice system. For example, we heard testimony about criminal organizations that use 11-year-old children to run drugs. Criminal organizations also target young people who are vulnerable and do not have positive influences in their lives. These young people are often seduced by the promise of a lifestyle of power and money. However, we know that this most often does not turn out to be true and that, in fact, gang life is a dangerous life to choose.

When the Attorney General of Manitoba, Andrew Swan, testified before the committee, he emphasized this:

Gang life closes out family, friends, school, and community. Many young people who get brought into gangs, who are coerced to join gangs, find that there is no financial benefit. There's a cutting off of all the things that the youth have been involved with, and there is no easy way out.

Being involved in a gang increases the risk of violence to an individual and even the risk of death.

The vulnerability of youth in these situations was the primary motivation behind the proposed imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty if the individual recruited is under the age of 18. Attorney General Swan elegantly described this element of the proposed offence as a guaranteed consequence. This element would send a strong message to gangs that Canada's young people are a priority and that we will protect them.

I will be the first to admit that Bill C-394 represents only one of many available responses to a problem that has been recognized by many to require a multi-faceted approach. It is a Criminal Code approach. I do not wish to suggest for one second that this bill alone would prevent all recruitment into a criminal gang. Do I think it is an important response? Yes, I do. Do I think it is a meaningful response? Of course it is. I also recognize that combatting organized crime requires a broad response.

Prevention efforts must also be put in place to provide meaningful alternatives and positive role models so that people who may be thinking about joining a gang have an opportunity to choose otherwise. The government has made significant investments over the past number of years to support programs and youth gang prevention activities. The proposed offence of recruitment by criminal organizations would provide yet another tool for police as they continue to address the growing problem of criminal gangs.

The effort to recruit people into a criminal organization is more than just a problem for the people being recruited. It also represents a significant problem from the perspective of public safety. When people are successfully recruited into a criminal organization to facilitate the organization's ability to commit crime, it enhances the threat posed by these groups in general.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-394 has been reported to the House with a few minor technical amendments, which I support. I am also very pleased to report that there was unanimous support for this bill by all our colleagues at committee.

I would like to now briefly comment on an amendment made by the committee.

Bill C-394 was amended to include coercion in the list of prohibitive behaviour. That particular amendment would have the effect of prohibiting the recruitment, solicitation, encouragement, invitation and coercion of someone to join a criminal organization.

Coercion is a term that is generally used in criminal law to refer to conduct that is for the purpose of compelling someone to do or to refrain from doing something. Its inclusion in the bill's proposed new offences therefore makes sense. It is another way in which people can be, and are being, brought into criminal organizations, which in turn increases the capacity of criminal organizations to commit crime.

Bill C-394 is an important piece of legislation, and I want to thank the committee for its work on this bill.

In closing, I would like to again thank the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale for introducing this extremely important bill. The protection of youth is a priority for this government and it should be a priority for all members of this House.

Furthermore, the threat of organized crime continues to be a major concern for Canadians. The thought that youth are being brought in and recruited by such organizations is a very real and troubling issue. It is for this reason that I hope all members will stand in this House and support Bill C-394.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my hon. colleagues for taking the time to participate in the debate on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-394 is legislation that Canada needs in order to make our streets and communities safer for everyone to enjoy.

This is not about politics or partisanship. It is my belief and hope that when it comes to protecting our youth and our most vulnerable citizens, we are all on the same side. Our youth are our future and it is our responsibility to provide an environment in which they can reach their greatest potential.

The realities of a gang lifestyle are heartbreaking. Such things as death, guns, drugs, violence, substance abuse, criminal activity and prostitution are all too common in this environment. This is a place that no person should ever find themselves, yet far too many still do. It is our responsibility not only as elected representatives but as citizens of this country to work together in an effort to make our future safe for all.

This proposed legislation is an important tool that our criminal justice system needs in order to address this growing concern. The act of gang recruitment affects those directly involved. It is a danger to families, communities and the safety that every Canadian holds dear. Young Canadians, regardless of where they grow up, should be able to grow and explore their potential in a safe environment.

It is an unfortunate and disheartening reality that youth today are targeted by active and violent gangs. The means by which these gangs recruit our youth are both inhumane and life-altering. This reality necessitates the quick passage of Bill C-394 because one person recruited into a gang is one person too many. It is time to take action so that families do not have to live in fear and communities across this country can enjoy the safety and security that we all deserve.

As this bill is at third reading and will soon be voted on, I would like to take a moment to thank everyone who has been involved in the development and progression of this bill.

I would like to sincerely thank my very hard-working staff, both in Brampton and in Ottawa, for their support; my colleagues for supporting this bill from the beginning; and community stakeholders across this great nation who met with me, including front-line police officers and justice officials who supported this bill from the beginning and even took the time to testify before the justice committee.

I would like to thank my constituents, the wonderful citizens of Brampton—Springdale, for the honour of allowing me to represent them here in this House and for providing me with incredible feedback and support toward this bill.

Finally, I would like to thank the countless number of youth I had the opportunity to meet and who inspired me to create this piece of legislation so that their future and the future of coming generations could be protected.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 13, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my speaking time today to come back to an important question that I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development early last February.

Canadians learned last winter about the existence of quotas and that Service Canada investigators have to make monthly savings. Now we have learned a little bit more about the implementation of the changes to the Employment Insurance Act. What is happening now is that the rules have become so complicated and there are so many restrictions that they are mind-boggling. The worst thing about all this is that the new regulations that have to be followed are not clearly explained to workers who have lost their jobs. They are kept totally in the dark, apart from the publication of the regulations in the Canada Gazette on a Friday evening just before the House adjourns, as has become the Conservatives’ habit.

Basically, the regulations are hard for Canadians to understand and apply. The restrictions are such that only four out of 10 people in Canada are entitled to their employment insurance. The others are not entitled to it.

Does the minister think these figures are normal?

I am absolutely sure that Canadians would like to have more details about these notions of suitable employment and reasonable job search that have been changed. How many CVs do workers have to send out every day to avoid having their benefits cut? How will the 100-kilometre rule be applied? Can the minister tell workers what the real story is?

Rather than listening to the main people concerned with employment insurance, such as workers, employers and experts, the Conservatives prefer to stick with an ideology that flies in the face of Canadian values.

Our country is huge and is made up of resource regions with seasonal economies. The work available depends on this kind of economy, which predominates in the regions. The diversity of our economy benefits all Canadians, and our social safety net, which we contribute to as employees or as employers, should be available for Canadians when they lose their jobs.

A few days ago, on April 28, 2013, I took part in a huge demonstration in Montreal, and I heard horror stories about families stricken by poverty, forced relocations and employers who are losing their skilled workforce.

These demonstrations are happening right under our noses and under the minister’s nose, and they are spreading right across the country. The Atlantic provinces are now speaking out against the changes. Even New Brunswick, where a Conservative government is in power, is calling for moratorium while impact studies are carried out, studies which of course were never conducted when the changes were being made.

The question is simple. Workers want changes to the reform package now. What can the minister offer them?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the hon. member's question is based on flawed assumptions.

What we are actually doing is helping employment insurance claimants get back to work. We are not penalizing them.

We are ensuring that EI is there for people who paid into the system, who are without work and who need it. Our government is connecting Canadians with available jobs. No matter where a claimant lives, whether it be in a small community or an urban setting, they now have improved access to information on available jobs in their communities. The enhanced job alert system, which is now available to all Canadians, sends daily notifications of new job postings.

The updated definition of suitable employment is based on commuting time, working conditions, type of work, wages, hours of work and a claimant's personal situation. While claimants are required to expand the scope of their job search, nothing prevents them from continuing to seek work in their preferred occupation at their preferred wage.

We empathize with Canadians who have lost their jobs and who are making a real effort to find work in their area, but who have not succeeded. These Canadians can rest assured that they will continue to receive employment insurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, the basic premise is not flawed; rather, the government is not telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I would like to provide a brief summary of this fiasco.

Access to employment insurance was already at an all-time low. The reform is making it even harder for Canadians to get benefits. There were rules in place based on regional realities. Instead, now the rules are stricter for everyone. There were regulations in place that allowed workers to find jobs based on their skills. Now workers have to accept any job even if the salary is lower, never mind skills and lost productivity. There was a decentralized appeal system that worked and that took into account regional realities. Now, the appeal system is becoming increasingly slow, and it is infested with Conservative candidates who were defeated at the polls and who were appointed to these positions. We all know who benefited from Conservative political patronage and got jobs that pay over $100,000.

All Canadian workers are asking for are jobs that allow them to make a living, use their skills and contribute to the Canadian economy.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware of the real purpose of employment insurance.

Employment insurance provides temporary help to those who lose their job through no fault of their own.

This initiative is clarifying, not changing, the responsibilities of Canadians who are collecting EI. Our government is making common sense changes to help better connect unemployed Canadians with the available jobs in their regions that match their skills. For those who are unable to find employment, employment insurance will continue to be there for them as it always has been.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pick up on the same topic of employment insurance cuts, or the changes to the program.

This is fairly timely in light of the fact that, over the last couple of days, the four Atlantic premiers have come together to voice their concerns about the changes that have been made and to approach the Conservative government to try to impart on it the impact that these changes are going to have throughout their provinces. When we look at it, two of the four premiers are Conservative premiers.

I know David Alward, in New Brunswick, was pretty apprehensive at first. He did not want to do anything to make waves with the boss, but he is getting it loud and clear from the people of New Brunswick now just how these changes are going to impact them.

It speaks to a broader question here. It speaks to the attitude that has been taken by the government, particularly about the people of Atlantic Canada. The infamous words of the Prime Minister say that the people of Atlantic Canada have this culture of defeat.

We are very much aware of the letter that was written by Senator Stephen Greene. It borders on repugnant, the malice that he holds for the people of Atlantic Canada. He talks about this culture of dependency. Maybe if he got out of his office and went to these communities and saw the honesty, the sincerity and the hard work of these people in these rural communities, which really contribute to the regional GDP of the area, he would understand that these regions contribute considerably to the well-being of the country. Over half of the regional GDP is generated through seasonal industries.

When I hear the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refer to the fishery as an EI fishery, and when I know that the government was headed toward the cancellation of owner-operator and fleet separation policies, it just underlines the approach the government has taken to people not only in Atlantic Canada and Quebec but in rural communities across the country. The changes that are being made to EI are only going to hurt the people in those rural communities even more.

I would ask the government to reconsider and pay attention to the premiers of Quebec and Atlantic Canada now and put a moratorium on these changes.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the common sense changes we made to employment insurance allow us to provide Canadians with better information about the job market and to help them find jobs more quickly.

There are skills and labour shortages in many parts of Canada, including rural areas, as well as areas of high unemployment.

I am going to actually answer the question that the member had presented at the House, which I was asked to respond to initially, as opposed to what he presented today. I think it will also answer some of his questions from today.

Our efforts are meant to help those who are out of work find jobs in their local areas that match their skills. The connecting Canadians with available jobs initiative helps unemployed Canadians get back into the workforce as quickly as possible, no matter whether a claimant lives in a big city or a small community. They now have better access to local, regional and national labour market information. In addition, enhanced job alerts provide up-to-date information to individuals across the country each day.

Finding work is more difficult in some communities than in others. We recognize that, and our government understands that. That is why local labour market conditions are taken into account when considering a claimant's job search efforts.

As long as individuals make a reasonable effort to find another job, they will not be denied employment insurance benefits.

The need for claimants to look for work while collecting benefits is actually not new, though. If there are no jobs in that area, EI will continue to be there for individuals, as it always has been.

To ensure that Canadians have the skills they need to fill these new jobs, budget 2013 has announced the Canada jobs grant.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I noted today that Warden Steve Sampson from the Municipality of the County of Richmond was in attendance in the House today. We had an opportunity to speak about the impacts of these changes on his community.

I was in Guysborough over the weekend and spoke with Warden Lloyd Hines. This community has an unemployment rate around 17% right now and is facing considerable challenges.

People see these changes as the government throwing gasoline on the fire. They believe these changes will accelerate out-migration and accelerate hardship. Many of these people who have worked in seasonal industries for generations are going to find themselves on the welfare rolls. Their families will face a great deal of hardship.

If the government had thought these changes through, it would understand the far-reaching impacts they will have.

I would ask again that my colleague heed the call from the Atlantic premiers and from the Premier of Quebec, Pauline Marois, and put a moratorium on these changes.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has made common sense changes to better connect unemployed Canadians with opportunities for jobs. We have put forward in the budget opportunities for individuals to gain the skills they need to be able to enter into employment through either the Canada jobs grant or apprenticeship initiatives.

As I have mentioned many times in the House before, employment insurance will continue to be there for those who require it and who have paid into the system, as it always has been. Personal circumstances will always be taken into consideration.

I encourage the member opposite to make sure, as I have in my local community, that members of his local community know that the rules of EI are that, if people have paid into the system, they qualify for it and it will continue to be there for them as it always has been.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:31 p.m.)