Anne-Marie Day

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleagues who spoke so eloquently about this motion. I will mainly focus on the unfair clawback of employment insurance benefits, which discourages many Canadians from working while they are receiving benefits.

On March 29, 2012, the federal government presented its first budget as a majority Conservative government. This budget includes a number of changes to the employment insurance system, which were set out in the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act. Since last spring we have discovered one thing after another in this omnibus bill, which is a real Trojan Horse. We now know that, aside from 50 or so pages of tax measures, hundreds of other pages were dedicated to repealing or amending 69 acts on a variety of subjects that should have necessitated a number of public consultations. This bill affects, for example, old age security, immigration, the environment and my file, employment insurance.

Under the announced changes, fewer people will be eligible for employment insurance benefits. More people will be forced to accept lower-paying jobs and many people will be redirected to provincial social programs. The announced measures target seasonal workers in particular, or those who have temporary jobs or whose work situation is unusual and who hold more than one job to make ends meet. In short, they target the poorest members of society.

In July, 508,000 out of 1,377,000 unemployed Canadians received regular employment insurance benefits, which means that 870,000 unemployed workers were left without unemployment insurance benefits. Fewer than four out of ten unemployed workers receive unemployment insurance. That is unprecedented.

An old pilot project enabled claimants who worked during their benefit period to earn up to $75 a week, or 40% of their weekly benefits. In August 2012, the government introduced a new calculation method. This method penalizes workers in the regions, seasonal workers, on-call workers and temporary workers. A vast majority of claimants are penalized by this measure.

That is the crux of the issue. Previously, claimants working part-time while receiving employment insurance had the opportunity to take home a larger portion of their earnings, but now they are at a disadvantage. I have an example. I found out about one of my constituents who is dealing with this problem. Her weekly income is $271 before deductions. Last week, she worked 14 hours, earning $148. Before August 5, 2012, she was allowed to earn $271 plus $108, minus the $148 she earned, which comes to $231. Under the new system, she still gets her $271 before deductions, plus 50% of the $148 she earns for working 14 hours, which is $74, minus $148, which comes to $197. That is $34 less than she was earning before the Conservatives reformed employment insurance. That is completely unfair to low-income families, who are the hardest hit by this change.

Compared to the previous program, the new pilot project that allows people to work while receiving employment insurance benefits will not provide an incentive to many employment insurance beneficiaries who can find work for just a few hours a week, for low wages or for a combination of the two. Unlike the previous program, the new system discourages workers from holding several jobs.

So the question is, are the Conservatives truly incompetent, or are they deliberately attacking more and more poor people?

As for premiums, which the Liberals mention in part (a) of their motion, we must not forget that the current $9 billion deficit in the employment insurance operating account would not exist had the Liberals and the Conservatives not plundered the fund for decades.

These governments diverted $57 billion—sometimes this amount is estimated at $58 billion—of the employment insurance fund or, in other words, worker and employer contributions. They used it to balance their own budgets. Had this money not been taken from the employment insurance fund, we would not be under pressure now and we would not be seeing increases in EI premiums.

In economic good times, the Liberals and the Conservatives used the employment insurance surplus to meet their own objectives. However, now that the program is running a deficit, they are making sure that workers and employers are the ones who will pay off the debt. Clearly there are two sets of rules. Everything depends on the cost effectiveness of the program.

What is important to remember is that people are caught between a rock and a hard place. I think I showed that today in question period.

People are being offered jobs located extremely far from where they live. As we saw today in question period, people sometimes have to travel 12 hours and pay to take the ferry if they live in the Magdalen Islands and have to get to Bonaventure.

What is being offered to claimants is unrealistic, but they have to accept these jobs and these regulations or their income will be cut by 70%. If there is no work because the season is over, people should be able to receive employment insurance benefits until the beginning of the next season.

Another problem is areas that are getting poorer where people will be unable to find work but will not agree to travel further than what has been deemed “reasonable” or accept so-called “suitable” employment.

Today, I spoke about a man from Carleton who could have taken a job at a fast food restaurant in Gaspé, which is a three-and-a-half-hour drive away from where he lives. People can turn down jobs but then they will not be entitled to receive employment insurance benefits.

The NDP certainly supports parts of this motion because it is the poorest people who are affected. In our society, there is a gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap must be reduced.

We really need to recover the money that unemployed workers are losing and not reinvest it in unrelated areas.

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, employment insurance reform is giving rise to anomalies that only the Conservatives can understand.

A man from Carleton was offered a job in Gaspé. Gaspé, of course, is three and a half hours from Carleton. In another example, a man from the Îles-de-la-Madeleine was offered a job in Bonaventure, on the Gaspé Peninsula. That is a twelve-hour trip, including a $50 ferry ride.

In light of this information, does the minister still believe that the definition of “suitable employment” is appropriate?

[Petitions, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud to present a petition from the citizens of my riding, a petition against Motion M-312, which reopens the abortion debate.

[Employment Insurance, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that money does not belong to the Conservatives or to the minister. It belongs to the workers. Why is she acting as though it is her money?

By changing the rules, she is penalizing claimants who are attempting to make up some of their lost income by working. The first $75 in benefits is going to be cut by 50%. Not content with forcing people to accept 30% pay cuts, the minister is now going to penalize those who are trying to make up this lost income.

Is she doing this deliberately or is she simply incompetent?

[Employment Insurance, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if there is another area where people are going to pay the price for a lack of consultation, it is employment insurance. In May, the Conservatives changed the employment insurance rules with their mammoth bill, and unemployed workers are fed up. Since May, the minister has been changing the rules as she sees fit in order to prevent claimants from receiving the benefits they are entitled to. She also wants to force workers to accept 30% pay cuts.

Why the improvisation? Why the lack of consultation?

[Employment Insurance, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am talking about hundreds of jobs lost. That means that hundreds of unemployed workers will not have access to employment insurance. Yet the parliamentary secretary is talking about the carbon tax.

What has that got to do with it? As our teenagers would say, whatever...

Hundreds of jobs have been cut at Service Canada. The 2011 Conservative budget cut funding for Service Canada by $276 million. They slashed their budget by $183.2 million in 2012. Where are they heading? That is unprecedented. They talk about sustainable development. They want to change the subject and go off on a tangent to talk about the carbon tax. We can also go off on a tangent. We have to take our workers into account. We have to think about our workers.

We are currently seeing an utter lack of commitment on the government's part towards the unemployed, just for the sake of an absurd Conservative logic. The unemployed do not want to lose their jobs. They want to work. They are victims of an economic turmoil that the government is not able to control. The Conservatives are not able to protect jobs and workers. With a fiasco like that, no wonder Canadians are losing confidence in their government.

[Employment Insurance, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your recent appointment and I thank Ms. Savoie for her good work. I can name her in the House now that she is no longer a member of Parliament.

I am pleased today to get back to an issue that is very important to Canadian workers who have lost their jobs: employment insurance. When Parliament was still hard at work many weeks ago, I asked a question to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, which had to do with the funds used to continue operations of the Employment Insurance Financing Board of Canada, when millions are being cut in essential services at Service Canada.

We were in the middle of debate on the reforms to employment insurance found in Bill C-38, that Trojan Horse bill that was hiding all kinds of legislation that will have a number of negative effects on our economy, our social programs and our environment. I think that my question deserves more of an explanation than what I received as an answer. That is why I am here today.

Canadians deserve more transparency from this government. It must be accountable for its unjustified actions that affect Canadians. This is a matter that concerns me greatly. Millions of dollars in cuts have been made to Service Canada in recent years; available resources should be allocated to providing the best possible services to Canadians, who, when applying for employment insurance, are already dealing with mostly casual employees.

In the view of the NDP and of thousands of Canadians, essential services for the unemployed have become inadequate and inaccessible. Workers all across the country who lose their jobs have to wait for weeks, if not months, without seeing hide nor hair of their first benefits. It has become practically impossible to speak to someone at Service Canada about one's own file and one's own situation.

The unemployed see their bills piling up; entire families are falling into complete financial peril. How many people do we know who can go two whole months with no income and still manage to meet their needs? Are we that rich in Canada that we are able to do that? Meanwhile, Service Canada employees can no longer keep up with the demand, or are let go as a result of the draconian cuts that followed the most recent budget.

The government claims that Canadians had a choice to make: eliminate the deficit or have good public services. That choice is completely absurd. Eliminating the deficit is an excellent idea as long as it is not done at the cost of public services and on the backs of Canadians. They need the front-line services and they must not be deprived of them.

Essential services must be maintained and this government will not be fulfilling its commitment to Canadians by closing hundreds of points of service and revamping appeal procedures in order to make them even less accessible. Accessibility to EI is at an all-time low in Canada. Under the Conservatives, although all workers pay into employment insurance, only 37% of them have access to it when they need it.

In conclusion, the government has put in place rules that are so strict that less than one in four people will henceforth qualify for the program. Let us also recall that the government has not contributed to the employment insurance fund since 1990. The contributors to the fund are people without jobs, people with jobs and employers.

[Petitions, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by Canadians in Ottawa, Burnaby and Vancouver who are asking that the debate on abortion not be reopened and that Motion M-312 be rejected.

[Housing, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary can try to lull people with magic numbers, but the reality is that, right now, 300,000 Canadians are homeless and 1.5 million Canadians do not have access to decent and affordable housing.

Balancing the budget on the backs of middle-class families and poor people in our community is not economically viable or humanely possible.

I am asking this government to do more and to do better for Canadians with average and low incomes using a long-term approach.

This government runs on magic numbers. Well then, I would like it to take note of this one: one F-35 is equal to 6,400 affordable housing units. That is a number that the government should take note of.

[Housing, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I raised an important question in the House before the summer break, and today I want to revisit a troubling issue that I care deeply about. This issue is very important to my constituents too. The issue is affordable housing and access to home ownership in Canada.

The question I asked in the House was about the Conservatives' failure to do anything about this issue, and I asked the government to explain why Canada still did not have a national housing strategy. We know that some 300,000 Canadians are homeless and that 1.5 million households—that is about one in seven—do not have access to decent, affordable housing.

A report published in the summer of 2011 by the Canadian Housing & Renewal Association showed that the affordable housing shortage hits single-parent families, new immigrants, aboriginals and seniors in Canada hardest. We also know that the mortgage is the single largest expense for most Canadian households, which spend between 35% and 50% of their income on shelter, heating and public services related to housing. In some Canadian cities, such as Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and even Quebec City, access to home ownership is getting harder and harder.

If we add to this already worrisome picture the fact that the Conservatives' last budget was devoid of any national housing strategy and the recent public statements by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who is forecasting an increase in Canadians' household debt in 2012-13, the situation is downright alarming.

The last budget did not allocate any money for affordable housing and did not mention a national housing strategy, even though organizations such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and FRAPRU have called for one repeatedly. Reducing the amortization period for mortgages from 30 to 25 years was a good government initiative. However, this measure should be part of a broader, more visionary and more concrete plan.

Furthermore, with regard to Canadian household debt, Statistics Canada recently reported that debt as a percentage of disposable income had reached a record 152.98% in the third quarter of 2011, compared to 150% in the second quarter. That is an increase. As recently as this past June, the Governor of the Bank of Canada warned that the country's economic growth cannot depend on household debt, which includes a large amount of mortgage debt.

What is the Conservatives' careful, structured plan for long-term sustainability of affordable housing? What are they doing to give Canadian families some breathing room and to ensure that they do not have to spend half their income to put a roof over their heads?

I would like clarification of another point concerning the end of federal social housing operating agreements. We know that several Quebec non-profit housing organizations will lose federal funding and tenants will face higher rents. The government has not indicated whether it intends to provide new funds. This loss of funds will result in a significant reduction in affordable housing units. We should also note that many of these agreements have been in place for more than 30 years. CMHC will cut more than $100 million in the 2014-15 fiscal year.

Canada is the only G8 country without a national affordable housing strategy. Why not take action in these tough economic times when Canadians' lives are becoming increasingly difficult?