Scott Armstrong

[Canada-U.S. Relations, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Prime Minister and the President of the United States launched the beyond the border action plan, which will strengthen our economy by moving goods to and from the United States in a much more efficient manner.

As part of that action plan, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities announced today that both governments have agreed to mutual co-operation and recognition of air cargo security in both countries.

Can the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities please update the House on this important initiative?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have talked with several of those people. Once we explain these changes and how they will benefit the workers getting back to work, how they will benefit them for taking part-time employment while they are on claim without penalizing them and holding back money from their claim, they are fine with the changes.

The problem is the fearmongering and the spreading of untruths, and I am not saying that member is doing it. However, there are opposition members who are using these changes to scare unemployed people and to score cheap political points, quite frankly, rather than using these types of positive policy changes to encourage people to get back to work, to help them find employment. It is absolutely disgraceful.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the statement of the member of the opposition. What we are doing is putting a policy in place which would help people up and not hold them back.

We have initiated several programs within EI which will help support Canadian workers, for example, the working while on claim. This allows people to continue to collect their unemployment insurance claim while taking on part-time employment. This was not the case before.

We are extending that in this project so that people will be able to now collect up to 50% of their claim and continue to collect their EI claim. This is a net benefit for those workers and encourages them to actually take employment. It does not encourage them not to take a part-time job because they might put their EI claim at risk.

These are progressive changes we are making in the system that are going support the workers, both seasonal workers and workers who work all year round. We are supporting workers. We are encouraging them to get back to work. We are going to help them find that job and get them back to work as quickly as possible.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

As many government members have already stated, we cannot support a factually incorrect motion.

I would like to drill down on some of the details of what our government is actually proposing with this legislation.

The changes we will make will ensure that unemployed Canadians are made aware of all available work in their local labour markets within their skill set. However, if there is no available work within their skill set, then EI will be there to support them. It always has been there to support them and always will be there to support them.

As indicated in Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, the government intends to establish clear definitions for suitable employment and reasonable job search. Please note that these improvements can only apply to Canadians receiving regular EI benefits and EI fishing benefits. They will not apply to Canadians receiving EI for special benefits, such as maternity, parental, compassionate, or sickness.

Let me focus on suitable employment for a moment.

Several factors will affect the definition for suitable employment. These factors will include, first and foremost, the personal circumstances of that person who applies. This is a point that the opposition members have been very ignorant on as they attempt to scare Canadians with respect to the impact of these changes. As a member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, I want to assure my constituents that the personal circumstances of an EI claimant will always be taken into account when determining what is considered suitable employment.

Claimants receiving EI will not have to accept work if they have a health problem that prevents them from taking a particular job, or if they have family obligations that prevent them from working at certain times of the day or if they have limited transportation options for commuting them to and from work. If they are not physically capable of performing work, they will not be required to take that job.

As the minister of HRDSC stressed again at committee yesterday, these changes would be implemented in a fair, practical and reasonable way.

What has not been reasonable is for the opposition to enlist in a campaign of fearmongering on topics such as commuting time. Under our proposed changes, a workplace must be within an hour's commute unless the claimant's previous commuting history and the community's average commuting times are longer than that. It is simple common sense.

Let me focus on the two criteria for suitable employment that are drawing the most attention. They are the type of work and the wages that are considered reasonable. In determining what criteria apply, EI claimants will be placed in one of three categories: long-tenured workers, frequent claimants and occasional claimants.

Let me take a few moments to define each of these categories.

Long-tenured workers are those who have paid into the EI system for seven of the past 10 years and who over the last five years have collected EI or fishing benefits for 35 weeks or less. These workers would be initially required to look for a similar job that would pay for 90% of their previous wages. After 18 weeks on EI benefits, long-tenured workers would be required to expand their job search to jobs within the field of one they previously held and to apply for jobs that would be above 80% of their previous wages.

Frequent claimants are those who have had three or more claims for regular or fishing benefits and have collected more than 60 weeks of EI benefits in the past five years. They would be required to expand their job search to jobs similar to the job they normally performed from the start of their EI claim. They would also be required to look for work that paid wages starting at 80% of their previous hourly wage. After receiving benefits for six weeks, they would need to expand their search to any work they would be qualified to perform so long as the wages would be within 70% of their previous employment.

Occasional claimants would include those not captured by the definitions of frequent and long-tenured workers. Occasional claimants would be allowed to limit their job search for their usual occupation, with similar wages of at least 90% of their previous hour wage for the first six weeks of their claim. After receiving benefits for six weeks, they would have to expand their job search to jobs similar to the one they normally performed, with wages that would be within 80% of their previous earnings. After 18 weeks, they would then need to further expand their job search to include any work they would be qualified to perform, as long as the wage would be at least 70% of their previous earnings.

It is a sad testament to fearmongering in which the opposition has engaged that I feel the need to point out the obvious, which is that no one would ever need to accept employment below minimum wage in Canada. The simple truth is that under these changes, EI claimants will always make more money working than by collecting EI, which is currently not the case.

As many people know, employment insurance pays 55% of an individual's average weekly income. The maximum annual salary used to calculate the weekly average is $45,900 per year. Therefore, if an individual is a frequent claimant and a reasonable job search will offer at least 70% of previous earnings, that is a substantial increase over 55% of the earnings that would be collected on EI.

This is why the opposition motion we are debating in the House today is factually incorrect. Canadians receiving EI will only be required to look for work that pays significantly more than they are currently collecting on EI. It is a net benefit to claimants.

Let me also be clear on a further point. As a Canadian from Atlantic Canada, I understand that in many small communities there may not always be economic opportunities outside peak seasons of employment. The Prime Minister has been perfectly clear on this point. If there are no available jobs in one's community, EI benefits will continue to support Canadians as they always have.

Let me turn briefly to the topic of a reasonable job search.

Canadians receiving EI benefits will be required to undertake job search activities, including researching and assessing job prospects, drafting a resumé, searching for job vacancies, applying for positions, attending interviews and undertaking other efforts to improve their employability, such as attending workshops, going to employment agencies and also job fairs.

EI claimants will also be required to look for a job daily and to keep records of their job searches. These search efforts will be consistent with the opportunities that are available. For example, in a community with few job openings, a job search should focus on identifying new opportunities and not applying for the same job or to the same business every day. In comparison, a job search in an area with numerous job opportunities should focus on both identifying and applying for available positions.

As part of the investment we are making under this initiative, EI claimants will be made aware of local jobs in their local labour market.

These improvements to EI will help more Canadians get back into the labour force and enable them to better support themselves and their families.

Unfortunately, we have seen the opposition attempt to play politics of fear and to confuse Canadians into believing some of these things are not true. Sadly, this is not the first time we have seen members of the opposition ignore clear realities of the Canadian economy in order to advance their narrow interests.

I would ask all hon. members in the House to support our government's plan for jobs, growth and economic prosperity. This is the reason Canada is leading the G8 in growth of 750,000 net new jobs created since the depth of the recession in July 2009. Therefore, I encourage members to join me in voting against this factually incorrect motion.

[Canada Pension Plan, May 18th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member who put this bill forward, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. I know he did this in good faith.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I want to start by expressing our appreciation for seniors who have worked hard to build a better country for future generations of Canadians. We commend each and every one of our seniors for all they have given and continue to give, and we recognize that they deserve a secure and dignified retirement that reflects on the contributions they have made.

I want to assure everyone that the Conservative Government of Canada recognizes financial security as a factor that has an obvious impact on the quality of life for seniors. In this regard, the government is taking a number of decisive actions to improve the lives of seniors on many fronts, including providing Canadians with almost $76 billion this year through Canada's public pension system.

We also introduced a new guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit to help Canada's most vulnerable seniors. This is the largest increase to the GIS for the lowest income seniors in a quarter century. This will improve the financial security and well-being of more than 680,000 seniors across Canada. These measures demonstrate that the Government of Canada is taking concrete action to help our seniors.

Of course part of helping seniors is the assurance that benefits will be paid in an efficient and timely manner. These are traits that would be hindered, not helped by this bill.

There are a number of critical problems with the bill. The first is the matter of cost. This is a significant issue in light of the current fiscal reality facing this global economy. The current system of monthly payments has been and will continue to be the most efficient way to administer the old age security and the Canada pension plan programs.

While we can never be sure exactly how many seniors would take advantage of a bi-weekly payment schedule were it universally adopted, a bi-weekly payment schedule would more than double the number of transactions for CPP and OAS benefits. This would significantly increase the administrative costs of processing and issuing benefits in a seamless and timely manner.

Public Works and Government Services Canada estimates that this proposed bill would increase the total cost of payment of administration and processing by about $18 million a year. That is $18 million that could actually go to seniors. This figure includes direct costs such as postage, banking fees, printing services and cheque reconciliation for both direct deposit payments and paper cheques.

When examining the proposed legislation, we must also consider the fact that the seniors population is also growing in Canada, and growing significantly. We need a more efficient and simple delivery method of benefits, not a more complicated one.

Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to complete Canada's economic recovery and return to balanced budgets. That is exactly what we are doing. We recently began to implement a significant deficit reduction strategy to ensure government programs are as efficient as possible.

Service delivery includes processing new applications, responding to inquiries, changing addresses, updating banking information, issuing millions of cheques and deposits, and cancelling benefits upon the death of a recipient. Payment processing already involves several different departments, all acting in conjunction to process these payments.

The processing cost of a single cheque or direct deposit may not seem like much when it is looked at in isolation, but when the government is issuing millions of cheques and deposits each month, this becomes a whole different matter.

As members of the House are likely aware, the first of Canada's baby boomer generation turned 65 in 2011. Within less than two decades, close to 1 in 4 Canadians will be over 64. Changing the payment schedule during this demographic shift would only increase expenses and create complications for the delivery of OAS and CPP benefits.

Canadians expect the programs to be delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible. The current system of monthly benefit payments for the CPP and OAS programs is the best use of taxpayers' dollars.

The real advantage of the monthly payment schedule is that it ensures the accuracy of payments by allowing the department time to respond to any changes in the individual's eligibility status, such as marital status or an increase or decrease in income. This important step is to make sure all seniors get exactly what they are entitled to when they are entitled to get it.

We must remember that the monthly payment schedule also serves the needs of seniors across this country. The practice of paying all benefits at the end of the month was adopted to provide the best service possible for our seniors. It is a commonly accepted standard for government benefits. This includes other federal benefits, such as those provided by Veterans Affairs Canada, as well as the universal child care benefit and the Canadian child tax benefit.

I would also add that most provincial and territorial benefits are also paid on a monthly basis. It is important to provide consistency across government so Canadians know exactly when they will be receiving their cheques and exactly what they will be owed.

If the government supported this bill, it would cause a ripple effect of increased program costs for both the provincial and federal governments.

Internationally, most of the OECD countries also provide monthly benefits for their seniors programs.

Ultimately, the change would be expensive and would further add to the complexity of a system that currently works well. It would also duplicate arrangements that could be made on an individual basis with financial institutions without the need for legislation.

In this kind of situation, our government strives to find a balance. We think we should maintain the monthly payment schedule as the most efficient system we can provide our seniors.

In this time of fiscal restraint, our Conservative government is committed to delivering the highest quality service in a way that is efficient, effective and focused on the needs of Canadians.

In conclusion, our government cannot support Bill C-326. It would be an irresponsible use of taxpayers' dollars. I encourage all members of this House to vote against it.

[Cyberbullying, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as a teacher I know full well the impact that cyberbullying has on our children. In my riding, several children have suffered so badly that they have tragically taken their lives as a result of bullying.

I wish to congratulate Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative leader Jamie Baillie on his innovative legislation that combats cyberbullying. His legislation will create a legal definition for cyberbullying. It forces school boards to educate and discipline their students. It dictates fines and community service to those who are guilty of cyberbullying. It empowers judges to order restrictions on the use of electronic devices, including the power to confiscate them if it is deemed needed. It also recognizes that parents have a role in the prevention of cyberbullying and holds parents legally responsible if their children are guilty of cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying is a plague upon our nation. I congratulate Jamie Baillie on taking strong action to stand up to it.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2012 promotes jobs, growth and economic prosperity for all Canadians. We do this by keeping taxes low, so that businesses will expand and hire more people.

However, it was no surprise on March 29, after only a few hours of review, that the tax-and-spend NDP declared its opposition to this pro-jobs and pro-growth plan.

Tonight we will implement a key part of economic action plan 2012 by supporting Bill C-38. This vote will implement a plan that will help create more new jobs on top of the more than 750,000 net new jobs that have been created since July of 2009.

Instead of playing silly procedural games, maybe the NDP should start acting responsibly, focus on the economy and support a real plan that will create jobs and growth for all Canadians.

[Workplace Safety, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, safety in the workplace is a priority for Canadians and it is a priority for this government.

This is North American Occupational Health and Safety Week, giving us an opportunity to focus the attention of employers, employees and the general public on staying safe in the workplace, at home and in the community.

Could the Minister of Labour please share with this House why occupational health and safety is such an important priority for this government and why today's date, May 9, has such great significance?

[International Trade, May 4th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the NDP and its activist union supporters continue to promote failed anti-trade policies that stifle economic activity. Yesterday the Canadian Union of Postal Workers condemned Canada's free trade agreement with Colombia, the same agreement the NDP consistently has opposed.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade please share with the House why our strong pro-free trade agenda will create jobs, hope and growth in this economy for Canadians and for our trading partners around the world?

[Afghanistan, April 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the truth hurts.

Canada's role in Afghanistan has ensured it is no longer a safe haven for terrorism. Our work there is also making a real difference in the lives of the Afghan people. Nine million children are now in school and the country's GDP has quintupled.

Canada is participating in an international mission to train Afghan security forces so that the country can continue to build on these achievements. Our commitment is until 2014.

The NDP leader stated this week that the NDP does not support this mission. This is not surprising from the left. In 1939, the leader of the CCF even said:

I would ask whether we are to risk the lives of our Canadian sons to prevent the action of Hitler....

Today the NDP still stands for radical ideas, reckless policy and dangerous left-wing ideology.