Bill C-542 (Historical)

National Urban Workers Strategy Act

An Act to establish a National Urban Workers Strategy

This enactment proposes to develop a National Urban Workers Strategy to address the common challenges faced by workers in Canada and to resolve inequities in taxation and access to social support mechanisms, including employment insurance. It requires the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to strike a task force, the membership of which must include the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Labour, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Industry, to develop a National Urban Workers Strategy. The task force must consult with provincial and territorial ministers responsible for social services, labour, pensions and others areas that relate to workers, as well as with labour organizations, representatives from industry and associations representing groups affected by this Act.

National Urban Workers Strategy

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

moved that Bill C-542, an act to establish a National Urban Workers Strategy, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport, in the great city of Toronto.

It used to be that we could leave school, university or high school or college, and get a job that paid a decent wage and we could consider raising a family, buying a home. We would also consider staying with that company for our entire working career and, at the end of it, have a pension that we could count on, a pension that would keep us, in our seniors years, living in dignity. In fact, we could have a job that we could build a life on.

All that has changed. Today, more and more people are working freelance, are self-employed, are working multiple part-time jobs, are working on short-term contracts, are working through temp agencies, and some, I think too many, are working for free, as unpaid interns. These are what I refer to as “urban workers”. What do they all have in common? They cannot access a workplace pension; they have no extended health benefits; they have no job security.

Tonight, we begin the important work to fix that with this national urban workers strategy.

Our labour laws, our policies, are predicated upon a post-war work reality that no longer exists, or barely exists. We need to pull our labour policies and our labour laws into the 21st century. We need to reflect the reality of work today. We are doing that, tonight, with this national urban workers strategy. It marks the first time in Parliament that we debate, in a comprehensive way, measures that would help freelancers, the self-employed, people who are working multiple part-time jobs, people who are on contract.

It would be one thing if there were just a few workers like that in our economy, but that is not the case. It used to be the case. In fact, my own father worked as a self-employed person. I remember those days because in grade school, he was the only dad I knew who worked for himself. Everyone else had traditional jobs.

A couple of years ago, the United Way and McMaster University came out with a very important report, that showed that almost 50% of all workers in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area could not access stable, full-time employment. They could not find it. We have a more recent study, in fact, it was just last month, from the CIBC that showed that job quality in Canada was at an all-time low, and this particularly affects young workers.

This is the legacy and the record of the current Conservative government. It was the legacy and the record of the former Liberal government, as well.

Tonight, we enter a new chapter in the proud history of the NDP. The NDP has always stood with and for workers. We are the party that has fought to protect workplace pensions. We have fought to protect extended health benefits for workers in the workplace. We fought for occupational health and safety measures. We fought for the protection of job security.

Tonight, we are fighting for all those workers who cannot access a pension to begin with, all those workers who have no extended health benefits, all those workers in the economy who do not have any job security, who could wake up tomorrow and have no job. This bill marks a new chapter.

I would like to just say a word about why the word “urban” is in the bill. The word “urban” is in the bill because about 80% of Canadians live in urban areas and this issue of precarious work is manifesting itself in significant measures in the economy of our urban centres. That said, this bill would positively affect all precarious workers, whether they live in a big city, a small town or a rural municipality. These issues are universal.

People cannot access job stability. They do not have access to a pension. They do not have access to extended health benefits.

What are some of the measures in the bill? I would like to speak to some of the core measures. I would like to do that by first telling a personal anecdote.

I was working, as I have for about 25 years, as a freelance arts and culture worker in Toronto. Around 2008 we had a significant health crisis in my family, one in which both myself and my partner had to put all hands on deck in order to deal with the crisis. That took a good four or five months to deal with.

For people working freelance what generally happens is while they are working they are also working to find the next job too because they never know when that next job will come. In that space of time when we were dealing with a health crisis at home I was not working. After the crisis subsided and I went back to finding employment, it took some time to ramp up to stable employment again and we incurred significant debt. We were in debt for quite some time. It took several years to get ourselves out of that debt.

It made me realize just how precarious my work life was, that there was this razor thin line between stability and economic calamity. I started to look around and realized that it is not just people in the arts and culture sector, although most of those folks are working in precarious situations, but it is many people. It is taxi drivers, graphic designers, office cleaners, clerks, cashiers, personal support workers and micro entrepreneurs, people who are cobbling together a living doing a variety of things in our economy. None of them are able to access the kinds of income security measures and supports that buffer workers from the calamities of life, whether those are job loss due to a changing economy or family crises or health crises. These workers cannot take time off to tend to sick loved ones. They cannot access paternity and maternity leave. They cannot access compassionate leave.

At the end of one job and the beginning of another, there is often a gap and there is no way to bridge that gap. We have no policies in place to bridge that gap. Tonight, we begin to build those bridges with a national urban worker strategy.

The bill compels the federal government to do something that this government seems almost frightened to do, which is to sit down with other levels of government, like the provinces, municipalities, labour groups, employers and other relevant stakeholders and start to really get into the meat of this issue of how we support these workers. These workers pay taxes, raise families and contribute in significant ways to the cohesive social fabric of our cities and our communities right across the country and yet we have not addressed their concerns, until tonight.

Some of the measures in the bill that we are suggesting the federal government look at are issues around, for example, employment insurance. We need to fix our employment insurance system so it is there when workers need it and we need to find ways to expand that so it is available for all workers. It currently is not. In fact, in the city of Toronto, even if they pay into it, oftentimes there are only about 30% of workers who can actually access it.

We know that this federal government has raided the EI fund. The last Liberal government did the same thing. Neither government had its eyes set on the issues of precarious work and how we build a system that takes care of all workers and gives them those supports.

We need look at the tax system. It is incredibly complex for those who are self-employed, those who are freelance and on contract. It deals with significant issues which we can look at. As an example, when the GST was first implemented, people with incomes at $30,000 had to start collecting GST for the federal government. We need to look at measures that will make it easier for urban workers to build a business, to build their careers and not just foist people who try to cobble a living together into a situation where they act as free tax collectors, essentially, for the federal government.

We need to take a look at a living pension for Canadians. We need to do this and we can do this. The NDP has fought for this for years. We need to expand the breadth and scope of the Canada pension plan.

We need to address the issues of the exploitation of workers and unpaid interns. We need to tighten our labour laws. We need to sit down with the provinces to talk about some of these issues. We have heard the debate around the issue of unpaid interns, young people working in situations where they have no rights or protection. This is outrageous. We should all think this is outrageous, that we are putting our young people into positions where they do not get paid for the work they do and they do not get the same workplace protection regimes that other workers have.

On top of that, we also need to acknowledge some of the very large issues that will significantly help urban workers, such as affordable child care. This is a major offer by the NDP to finally put in place affordable child care right across the country. We will not just promise it and then pretend we never said anything about it. We will promise it and we will deliver it.

Trying to find measures that are going to support urban workers is also another reason why a $15 an hour minimum wage is important because that provides an upward pressure on wages and it will help all precarious workers negotiate better wages for themselves. We have to look at any measure that will help both large and small urban workers.

I want to acknowledge the many people who have helped get this bill from the streets of Toronto to the floor of the House of Commons, people who prior to this felt that nobody was really taking on their issues and concerns. I am extremely proud to be part of a caucus that understands we have to move the marker for all workers in the country. The current government has left too many people at the side of the road in its rampant march for tax cuts for its wealthy friends at the expense of hard-working people and hard-working families across the country.

More and more people are working this way and this debate is an incredibly important one for Canadians who deal with this issue. Whether people watching this are precarious workers or not, everybody knows someone who is. Everyone has relatives or know teachers who cannot get a full-time, teaching gig. The bill is for them. The bill will help move Canada forward in a more equitable and fair way for all workers. I am very proud to stand here on behalf of all of those workers to present the bill. I look forward to the debate to come.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, a member from a neighbouring riding. This is a critically important conversation, and he deserves a lot of credit for sparking it and for framing it in a way that makes sense for Torontonians and for people living not just in urban areas but anywhere in this precarious form of employment that is particularly tied to the cultural sector and to the social sector.

We know there are organizations that exist from grant to grant, from cycle to cycle, and we know that often they find themselves almost taking themselves apart before they can put themselves back together. The individuals working in those areas have a very difficult time stringing together the salaries and the contracts and the stability that are required to be able to produce and contribute to a better community.

One of the challenges that they also have is that they are effectively a group of employees, and they get contracted out to employers. What is the relationship between organized labour and this informal pool of labour? How do we bring those two groups into harmony, when quite often one prevents the other from proceeding in clear solidarity?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do not think there is some kind of mutual exclusivity between the issues that affect precarious workers and organized labour.

In fact, many unions are very focused on this issue and are trying to find ways to organize and to help or support workers in precarious fields. I have had many conversations with trade unionists from both private sector unions and the public sector. I think they understand that these issues are crucial and that we need to find a solution together.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to support the bill introduced by my colleague, because it is a very important bill.

My grandfather worked at the Singer factory in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu for 44 years. My father was a French teacher at a CEGEP for 30 years. However, those labour market realities are becoming less and less common.

I have hosted many meetings in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie with my colleagues from Montreal to try to deal with this new labour market reality. Many people are self-employed, have precarious jobs or work on contract. We need to change our legislation to address this reality, support them, help them and make sure that they too have some security and a social safety net.

Would my colleague like to elaborate on where we should be going in order to be able to help young workers, who need more modern legislation?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague for his work on labour issues right across the country. It has been extremely important, and I am proud to work with him in this caucus.

Too often we have let young people down in terms of building a solid base upon which young workers can build a life. What this bill will do is essentially build a new, stronger, broader floor upon which workers can build a more stable life.

When I bring up issues around employment insurance, we need to remember that fewer and fewer young people can count on income security measures that workers from a generation ago, like his father, and a generation before that, like his grandfather, could count on. Workers fought for those things.

Today we have a new fight on our hands. That is why this bill is so important. That is why we need the support. That is why, quite frankly, precarious workers from right across the country are looking at this bill with great interest.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to comment on Bill C-542 because, while I applaud anybody bringing forward ideas in this place, I think that this one is significantly flawed.

The bill would create an act to establish a national urban workers strategy to be developed by a task force of the ministers of Employment and Social Development, Labour, National Revenue, Industry and the President of the Treasury Board. That is a recipe for more bureaucracy with little to show as a result.

Though it purports to be an national urban workers strategy, the bill is nothing more than a collection of vague generalities about reducing this, raising that, and maybe broadening or extending a few other things. It starts off by telling us that its provisions would apply to all workers in Canada, but then it adds “with particular attention to urban workers”. I have no problem with supporting all workers in Canada, and I will talk about that a little bit more later. However, is it really a national urban workers strategy? It is this kind of vaguely worded proposal that does not reflect well on Parliament, in my view, and the thoughtful and thorough approach that we should taking with private members' bills.

The bill appears to apply to every Canadian who works. On the surface, that is certainly not a bad idea. It appears to apply to them whether they live in the city or the country, work as a bicycle messenger or in an office, operate a farm or drive a truck. It uses words like “vulnerable” and “precarious” to describe the economic interests of the people that it says it wants to help, though it does not offer any specifics about how significant the problems are and how to improve things.

For something called a strategy, the bill does not contain anything that is strategic at all. For example, the bill says that we should be reducing the hours of employment required to qualify for employment insurance benefits. It is nice to see that the opposition has not forgotten about its $6-billion, 45-day work year. It does not say by how much it should be reduced, though. Would the opposition go even further than the previously misguided 45-day proposal? Would it be 35? How many hours? Would it be 1, 10 or 100? This does merit careful consideration, given the labour market impacts and the potential cost to premium payers.

We need to be working collaboratively with all players in the labour market, including businesses and workers, to ensure that Canadians have access to fulfilling employment and that they are encouraged to actively pursue education and employment.

The bill also says that we should be raising the level of EI benefits, but, again, it does not offer any indication as to how much. Would it be another $2 a week, $20 a week or $200 a week? We do not know. Once again, the opposition shows its desire to raise job-killing payroll taxes that are paid for by employers and employees.

The vague nature of the content is only my first concern. Where I think this bill would do the most damage is by simply ignoring anything and everything that has been done over the past several years to help Canadians improve their lives. Surely, it makes more sense to take stock of where we are before starting on the next big plan. Our plan for the past nine years has been simple: trade, training and tax cuts.

Let us start with the big-ticket item of tax cuts. Putting more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians and making life more affordable for families is essential to jobs and growth. That is why our government has cut taxes over and over again. The opposition has said that it will raise them, over and over again.

We have reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to its lowest level since John Diefenbaker was prime minister. I can remember that, if only vaguely. We also increased the amount of the basic personal deduction. I was not paying taxes then.

We have cut the GST twice, from 7% to 6% and down to 5%. We have brought in pension income splitting, which applies to millions of Canadian families and gives them more options about how to live their lives. We have created tax credits to support working, low-income individuals and families, public transit users, first-time home buyers and families caring for disabled relatives.

Most recently, we proposed a new family tax cut and enhanced the universal child care benefit and child care expense deduction. These benefits will help every single Canadian family with children under 18. That represents 100% coverage and many millions of Canadian families. Today, because of tax relief and benefit increases introduced by our government, the average two-earner family of four is better off by some $6,600. That is not a vague generalization. It is real money in the pockets of real people who need it, wherever they live in the country.

At the same time, our government increased the transfers we make to the provinces and territories to help pay for the social programs that Canadians want and need. These transfers will amount to an all-time high of almost $68 billion in 2015-16, and they will continue to grow year over year. Canadians take a lot of pride in these social programs, because how we treat those who are less well-off really matters.

That is why we brought in tax relief for seniors, some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The record there speaks for itself.

The guaranteed income supplement for the lowest-income seniors was increased up to $600 annually for single seniors and to $840 for senior couples. This alone has improved the financial security and well-being of approximately 680,000 seniors across Canada.

More people, particularly low- and middle-income Canadians, are also using RRSPs and tax-free savings accounts to shore up their retirement income over and above their Canada pension plan and old age security amounts. In 2013, nearly 2.7 million seniors had TFSAs, including me, and to help Canadians save even more on a tax-free basis, the recent budget announced an increase in the TFSA annual contribution limit to $10,000.

Contrary to suggestions from across the way, TFSAs are held by over 11 million Canadians, and they are not the supposedly rich few. TFSAs are a terrific vehicle for people as an alternative to the RSP, which is less useful to people as they get older. It is also a great way to shelter money from things like a small inheritance, a house sale, or a withdrawal from a RRIF. In fact, the incidence of low income among seniors has dropped dramatically, from 21.4% in 1980 to just 5.2% in 2011. This is real progress.

The latest budget also introduced a new home accessibility tax credit for seniors and people with disabilities. This 15% non-refundable income tax credit would apply on up to $10,000 of home renovations that allow a senior or a person eligible for a disability tax credit to be more mobile, safe, and functional in their own home.

The government also provides a wide range of support for young people preparing for and getting into the job market. During the 2012-13 academic year, the Canada student loans program gave out upwards of $2.6 billion in loans to approximately 477,000 post-secondary students. Nearly 357,000 students received a total of $695 million in Canada student grants, and most of it went to students from low- and middle-income families.

However, not everyone who studies does so in a multi-year program at a college or university. Some people, particularly those preparing for the trades, need help for shorter terms of education. As attractive as a university degree may seem to many, it is in the trades where Canada's labour shortage is the most acute and where younger people joining the workforce can find high-tech, secure, and very well-paying jobs to secure their own and their young family's future. That is why budget 2015 proposes to extend the Canada student grants to students in programs running for a minimum duration of 34 weeks. This means an additional 42,000 students will be eligible to receive financial help.

The government also has made it a top priority to help Canadians get the skills they need to find and keep good jobs. We introduced the Canada apprentice loan to help more apprentices complete their training, and the Canada job grant to involve employers in better matching skills training to market demand.

For those already in the workforce, we introduced the working income tax benefit, the WITB, a refundable tax credit for working low-income individuals and families.

For those who have lost their jobs, our recent budget also announced an extension of the existing EI working-while-on-claim project. EI recipients are able to earn money while still receiving benefits. The aim of this measure is obviously to help them stay more connected to the labour market.

These are some of the concrete initiatives that we have undertaken to help those who are among the most vulnerable in our society to improve their lives. In fact, this year Canadian families and individuals will receive some $37 billion in tax relief and increased benefits as a result of actions taken since 2006.

Both opposition parties have a one-point plan for Canadians: higher taxes. Our plan is simple: trade, training, and tax cuts.

I hope that all hon. members will agree that $37 billion in real support is de facto a national workers' strategy and much more, and is much better than the vague promises contained in this bill. I hope all hon. members will join me in voting against this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to join the debate today. I have been here 15 years now. My friend and colleague from Edmonton Centre identified the fact that his inability to support this bill was based on the fact that it is an urban workers bill and is not for all workers. After what we have seen come from the government side since the Conservatives took power—what is their batting record at the Supreme Court of Canada? I think it is zero for nine years. They pass legislation that does not stand up to charter challenges—if that is the only flaw, we are in pretty good shape with this particular bill.

[An hon. member]

It is a perfect record.

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

They have a great run going here, Mr. Speaker.

I want to comment on what my colleague from Davenport said during his speech. He said that putting together this group would allow for a comprehensive debate, or debate in a comprehensive way. I want to seize on that point, because I think anyone who has been in the chamber for any period of time would understand that in the last number of years, that has evaporated. The opportunity to really look at real issues that are impacting Canadians in any kind of real way has disappeared in the last number of years.

I think back to when I first came here. In my first six years, I sat on the fisheries and oceans committee with John Cummins. On the other side we have the right, the far right, and the extreme far right, and John was a little further right of that. He was a hard-working committee member who did his homework, came to committee, and offered his insights. My friend and colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore was a long-standing member of the fisheries and oceans committee. Over that six years, we did something like 18 different studies, everything from Pacific salmon to the east coast fishery to the seal hunt. Sixteen of the 18 studies were passed unanimously. Only twice were there dissenting reports. All members of the committee would see their issues reflected in the final presentation of those committee reports.

I believe that when a government is armed with unanimous reports like that, it has a chance of moving forward in some kind of positive way. We have all these moving parts, and to get it right, the chorus of opinions has to be brought in and synthesized, a decision has to be made as to what is going to work, and it needs to be brought forward. That needs to be a main function of the House. Anyone who has been here would have to agree that this has been lost in the last number of years.

On the human resources and skills development committee we have tried on four different occasions to look at temporary foreign workers and the temporary foreign worker program to get it right for Canadian workers and businesses that need access to the workforce. My colleague from the NDP brought motions forward twice and I brought two forward myself. However, the government said no, it was going to make the changes that had to be made, and it made the changes. It took the shackles off and it was wide open. There was a big influx of temporary foreign workers, a couple of headlines in the paper, and then it slammed the door shut. Rather than get it right, the Conservatives responded to headlines.

We know that committees have not been able to do their work.

Another aspect that my colleague from Davenport talked about, which is fairly novel, is consulting with the provinces. What an idea that is. We saw what took place with the Canada jobs grant. The government said, “Here is the program. We have it all set, so let us buy a couple of million bucks worth of advertising”. It never even spoke to the provinces. The people who were supposed to deliver the program never spoke to the provinces.

I think consultation is good. I think consultation is proper, and on that merit alone, I will encourage my caucus colleagues to support the bill.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the issues they raised.

Obviously, as my colleague from Edmonton Centre said, it is broad, but when we look at something in isolation, I do not think we give it a fair hearing and we probably do not get it as right as we could. I think it makes sense to have a task force thinking at 38,000 feet.

The rise in precarious employment has a huge impact not only on the social programs put forward by the provinces but on federal programs as well, including employment insurance and pension programs. Temporary employment has accounted for more than 75% of the jobs created in Canada in 2014. We know the government likes to pat itself on the back. The Conservatives almost separate their shoulders patting themselves on the back for jobs creation, but 75% of the jobs created in 2014 were part-time jobs.

The rate of employed Canadians working part-time has risen from 12.5% in 1976 to 19.3% in 2014. Since 1976, the number of people working multiple jobs has increased by 150%. Self-employment has increased by 29%. I do not see that as necessarily a bad thing, but I think a task force like this would at least be able to go in and measure why these people are going into businesses. Is it because of opportunity, necessity, or what? I see the merit in learning why.

We see more Canadians trying to run their lives on precarious employment. Since the government took over, there has been an increase of 66% in the number of people working for minimum wage. It is now over a million Canadians. When there is a 66% increase in the number of Canadians who are working for minimum wage, that should be frightening.

In other aspects of the bill, he is talking about EI and access to EI, and we know that access to EI is at a 70-year low right now.

With regard to processing and wait times, 600 processing agents and call centre agents have been carved out of the call centres. It is great that computers can do certain things; that is all well and fine and wonderful, but we have seen processing times go from typically three weeks to five, six, and seven weeks. When the square pegs go in the square holes and the round pegs go in the round holes, an individual can get an EI cheque within 28 days, but if there is anything out of whack at all, we see that dragged out to six, seven, and eight weeks. I think all Canadians understand that people cannot go that long without some type of income.

Finally, if I could close on this, the other aspect is pension provisions and changing the age of eligibility for OAS. That is another one we could have studied at the human resources and skills development committee, but they said no.

We know for a fact that it is low-income Canadians, Canadians who live their lives with disabilities, who will be hurt most by this change, and that has to be looked at. I am sure any task force in its right mind would say that there is no need for this change. It should be put back for the good of all Canadians.

I want to tell the member for Davenport that I will strongly encourage my colleagues to support his motion.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I stand tonight in this place to speak in support of my colleague from Davenport's private member's bill, Bill C-542, an act to establish a national urban workers strategy.

The bill stands in the spirit in which it is presented to this House, as a positive, constructive response to the economic reality of largely, but not exclusively, urban Canada. I will return to the positive and constructive momentarily. The bill also stands as an indictment of not just the current federal government as a wayward and destructive and/or delusional government, but as an indictment of successive federal governments, Liberal and Conservative alike, that have lost touch with the real circumstances of the vast majority of Canadians and the real concerns and anxieties of just about every Canadian, particularly in urban Canada. These governments have governed as though urban economies, environments, and communities do not exist, much less have their own peculiarities and needs and present their own great opportunities as well. We just heard a classic example of that from the member for Edmonton Centre.

Canada needs a federal government that understands that a national agenda must also be an urban agenda; a federal government that understands that in the 21st century, nation building is also city building. Successive federal governments have done nothing to respond not only to our own urbanization but to the fact that our own urbanization is part of a global trend. The world is connected through cities, and our Canadian cities are either fully global cities or rapidly globalizing cities. The implications of this are obvious. Economically, they are the conditions that this bill seeks to address. The mapping of this global urban transformation tells a story of growing economic exclusion and precariousness. The emergence of a large population that has difficulty earning a living in urban labour markets defined by, or increasingly defined by, high-end economic activity is a hallmark of the global and globalizing city.

The recent Metcalf Foundation report about working poverty in the Toronto region put it in the starkest terms. It states that Toronto and Vancouver, Canada's two richest and most global cities, are becoming:

...giant modern-day Downton Abbeys where a well-to-do knowledge class relies on a large cadre of working poor who pour their coffee, serve their food, clean their offices, and relay their messages from one office to another.

In only one of Canada's largest cities—Quebec City—did the percentage of working poor decline, and then just marginally. In the Toronto region, the report concluded, working poverty grew by 11% between 2006 and 2012. That is significantly short of the 39% growth in Toronto's population of working poor for the first five years of the new millennium under the Liberal federal government. However, it is particularly worrying that the number of working poor is growing at all, in the context of a shrinking number of those actually working; that is, in the context of Toronto's falling employment rate.

A study done in 2013 by the United Way and McMaster supports the findings of the Metcalf Foundation and the basis of this bill. It showed that, in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, about half of all workers cannot find full-time employment with benefits and job security; 20% are in extremely precarious employment: temporary, variable hours, and no benefits; and 9% are in permanent part-time work; and so on and so forth.

The report also shows that people who work in precarious employment earn 46% less than those in secure employment; that they rarely receive employment benefits beyond a basic wage; that they are more likely to be new immigrants; that they often do not know their work schedule a week in advance; that they have limited career prospects and less job satisfaction; and that they often have to hold more than one job at a time.

It is into this context that the member for Davenport offered this private member's bill. The bill proposes to establish a task force that would consult municipal, provincial, and territorial representatives, as well as labour and industry groups and other relevant stakeholders, to develop a national strategy that would identify policy and legislative changes needed to address the issues facing Canadians in precarious employment, including but not limited to fixing employment insurance for all workers.

All successive federal governments have done is tighten the screws on people who lose their jobs and pilfer the El fund to the tune of nearly $60 billion, money that had been set aside by workers to provide income for workers when they lost their jobs.

From a high-water mark of 80% eligibility in the 1980s, eligibility for EI has fallen steadily down to about half of that on the national level. In Toronto, it is about half of that again. Only about 20% of the unemployed in Toronto are actually eligible for EI benefits.

It is about ensuring a livable pension for all. We have a public pension system in Canada that was designed around and meant to complement a private pension system in the form of a labour relations regime that would allow workers to negotiate deferred wages in the form of defined benefit pension plans and benefits. That labour relations regime has been attacked by successive federal governments and it has not kept abreast of changes to the nature of work. Therefore, we are the only country in the OECD with the number of seniors living in poverty actually on the rise. Since 1995, the percentage has tripled.

Clearly, the next federal government will need to restore the old age security eligibility to age 65 and ensure that the Canada and Quebec pension plans are more provident to ensure that seniors can retire in dignity and out of poverty. It is about addressing the lack of workplace benefits as well. As with pensions, that which is not covered by our public health care system was to be dealt with at the bargaining table under our labour relations regime. As with pensions, workers are increasingly without and all Canadians are increasingly paying out of their pocket for health care, if they have money in their pocket to do so. It is about strengthening labour standards to prevent the exploitation of workers and unpaid interns.

My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has a private member's bill dealing with the issue of unpaid internships, so let me highlight the issue of job quality and worker protection.

Canada ranks 26th out of 28 countries on the OECD's index of employment protection. Canada ranks last amongst OECD nations in having the highest proportion of men identified as low-wage workers. Qualitatively, these kinds of assessments are confirmed domestically by the CIBC's Canadian Employment Quality Index. That index has fallen 15% since the 1990s, and 10% over the last decade. A 2013 study of labour markets in the east end of Toronto, entitled “Shadow Economies: Economic Survival Strategies of Toronto Immigrant Communities”, showed that just shy of half the respondents were paid less than minimum wage. The report went on to detail all sorts of other employment standards breaches.

At a minimum, it is time for the federal government to re-institute a minimum wage and set it higher and show leadership on this issue. My party's pledge is to re-establish a federal minimum wage at $15 an hour. There are of course other things outside the ambit of this bill that need to be done to make life more affordable for workers, indeed to even give them the opportunity to participate in the workforce. Most obvious amongst these is accessible, affordable child care. A recent City of Toronto report lays out the problem in my city very clearly. The cost of licensed child care for a single infant exceeds $20,000 per year, but there are only 65,000 spots in licensed day cares in a city with a child population of nearly six times that. There are only 25,000 subsidized spots in a city with almost 90,000 kids living below the poverty line. This is why the NDP's commitment to create nearly one million child care spaces at up to $15 a day is a critical part of the context to this bill and this discussion.

The world has changed dramatically over the last few decades, and Canada has changed along with it. The Liberal and Conservative parties have not. They have failed to recognize the importance of cities and urban economies to the fortunes of this country. However, it is clear to us, in the official opposition, that the goals we set for ourselves as a country and as Canadians will not be realized until we understand and respond to both the possibilities and vulnerabilities of our cities in this new context. I believe there is nothing inevitable about how we respond to this context.

We have choices to make and, on this side of the House, we choose to respond with an urban agenda that builds thriving urban economies with a prosperity shared more equally. We choose to put forward bills like the one before us today and we choose to support them and make life more economically secure for Canadians.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, Bill C-542 asks the House to do what has already been done. However, what I guess is most surprising about the bill is that it does not take into consideration, or even mention, any of the actions our government has already taken to help the most vulnerable workers in our society. I refer specifically to the EI program. The bill proposes a number of changes to the EI program.

Let us not forget that the employment insurance system provides temporary income support to workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own or are off work for things like pregnancy, childbirth, parental or sick leave or to take care of a child or other loved one who is seriously ill.

Under this bill, we are supposed to improve access to EI benefits. However, the bill does not take into account all of the important measures that our government has already taken to improve the equality, flexibility and responsiveness of the employment insurance system. It also does not take into account the system's current ability to adapt to variations in the economic conditions in our various regional labour markets.

When the unemployment rate in a region goes up, entrance requirements go down and the length of benefits increases. In fact, Statistics Canada data from 2013 shows that among EI clients who either lost their jobs or quit with just cause, eligibility rates have increased from about 81% to 86%.

The bill also suggests that we reduce the waiting period for claimants before they can get EI. Currently, it is two weeks and following the same best practices of other insurance programs, is similar to the deductible portion of private insurance plans. The elimination of the waiting period may also not help those most in need of additional benefits. Removing the two-week waiting period would only result in an additional payment of two weeks for claimants who found work quickly and did not use all their EI benefits.

The estimated cost for a change like this is in the range of $1 billion, or $1 billion on the backs of EI premium payers. The bill also says that the government should lower requirements needed to qualify for EI. This is another unnecessary change and reminds me of the time the opposition proposed a $6 billion 45-day work year that would be paid for by job-killing payroll taxes.

The EI system already has variable entrance requirements depending upon regional unemployment rates. When a region's unemployment rate rises, the entrance requirement is reduced and the duration of benefits increases.

Therefore, the amount of assistance provided increases and support adjusts to the changing needs of regions and community. In the absence of any details in the bill, I am curious as to what might be considered an acceptable number of work hours needed to qualify for benefits.

Currently, the minimum threshold for eligibility is 420 hours. It is higher in areas with lower unemployment rates. If we were to consider using a standard rate of 420 hours for regular benefits across the whole country, it would cost the program an additional $600 million annually. What if we lowered the 420 hours to 360 hours, or a 10-week work year, and applied it to all claimants regardless of any regional differences. This has been suggested by the NDP.

A 2010 Parliamentary Budget Office report looked exactly at this question and stated that doing so would cost over $2 billion annually. That is $2 billion out of the hands of hard-working Canadians and employers. Simply put, changes like this need to be founded on sound analysis of the evidence with careful consideration being given to labour market impacts.

The bill also says that we should improve income security for self-employed people. Thanks to the changes brought in by our government, self-employed individuals can already opt-in to the system on a voluntary basis and take advantage of a range of special benefits.

I was very surprised that the bill did not even mention the working while on claim pilot provided under the EI program. Working while on claim allows EI claimants, including low-income EI claimants, to take on work and earn extra money, while keeping some of their EI benefits.

The recent budget announced that the pilot would be extended for another year, with early results showing that claimants are working more while on claim. It provides over $50 million and helps claimants, including low-income and marginally employed individuals, stay connected to the workforce so they may return to work sooner.

It is benefits like this that remove disincentives to finding work, and put money in the hands of those who need it the most, low-income workers, whether they live in rural or urban areas.

I think it is important to consider the impact of the changes this bill proposes. Our government is spending billions of dollars on initiatives to help Canadians better prepare for the labour market. These initiatives are on top of existing programs, such as employment insurance. We regularly modify these programs as society and the workforce evolve.

For example, in our latest budget, we announced expanded eligibility for student grants. This reflects the fact that more people are going into fields like the trades, which typically involve a course of study that is vastly different from the one needed for an undergraduate degree. Training is critical for success in the job market. It is even more critical that employers and educators come together to design training that actually works in the real world.

That is why the latest budget is investing $65 million over four years to support partnerships between employers and educational institutions to develop curricula and programs that are aligned with the specific skill needs of our labour market.

Our government has also introduced the Canada job grant, which provides shared funding with private sector employers to train employees, and the Canada apprenticeship loan, which provides interest-free loans for apprentices who need to leave their jobs for a time to complete their studies.

It is also why our government is making substantial investments in labour market information, including $14 million per year for a new job vacancy survey and a new national wage survey to provide timely accurate information on occupation demand and wages by region.

The list of the initiatives we have taken to help urban and rural workers enter or stay in the job market is very long. The bill before us vaguely outlines the measures the government must take. In fact, some of these proposals would do absolutely nothing to improve the situation. This bill could even make matters worse for urban and rural workers. I do not think that Canadians want that.

I therefore hope all my colleagues will join me in continuing to improve supports for working Canadians and vote against this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.