Oh, oh!
Evidence of meeting #58 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #58 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
Yes, even though we don't have a Canadian team in the NHL playoffs anymore, it's still a great country and a great place to live.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Hoback.
Mr. Caron, you have five minutes, please.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being with us today, Minister.
I would like to talk about employment insurance and the current definition of employment that is not suitable. There are valid reasons why a person who is unemployed, or who has lost their job, might refuse a job without losing their employment insurance benefits. At present, there are three considerations: if it is employment in a different occupation, if the conditions of employment are less favourable, or if there is a labour dispute at the proposed place of employment.
The bill you are proposing eliminates two of those considerations. The only consideration that remains is if there is a labour dispute at the proposed place of employment.
My question is simple. What is your definition of suitable employment?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
Well, my definition doesn't matter. The definition that will be in the regulations matters. The regulations will be forthcoming from HRSDC pursuant to the provisions in the bill, which provides certain regulatory powers.
But you know, we are—
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I would like to clarify things before continuing.
You are asking us to make a decision about a bill, and a critical definition or element of what constitutes employment insurance, without knowing what definition will be used and what constitutes employment that is suitable or not suitable.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
Well, the regulations will deal with that. It's not uncommon to have legislation authorizing regulations, and regulations will follow. It's a standard procedure, and the principle—
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
We are talking about an essential, critical definition for the purposes of employment insurance. It will define the type of employment insurance to which the unemployed will have access.
How can we make a decision about a bill without first having that definition? We are not talking about a technical, administrative definition; we are talking about a definition that will be central to the requirements that will apply to whether or not a person receives employment insurance benefits.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
As you heard the Minister of HRSDC say in the House today, the person's skill set will be taken into consideration.
But look at this in the bigger context, in the context of the budget and what we're trying to accomplish in the long run. We have a shortage of workers, in the aeronautics industry in Montreal, in western Canada—in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in British Columbia—and in other parts of the country. We are not going to have enough people for all the jobs in this country. One of the ways of remedying that is by trying to eliminate disincentives in the EI system to people seeking employment. And this is respect—
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
That does not answer the question I asked.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I understand, but the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said in the House not two hours ago that suitable employment will be employment in the same field as the job that was lost.
However, what you are now eliminating from the definition of employment that is not suitable does precisely the opposite of that. What is being eliminated is the ability of a person to refuse employment if it is not in the same occupation, with the penalty being that they lose their benefits.
What the minister said in the House just now and what we have before us in the bill are two entirely different things.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
What I heard the minister say was a reference to the skill set of the person. Did you hear something else?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
The minister said that suitable employment will be in the same field. If the bill is adopted, however, it will mean that a person can be denied benefits if they refuse employment that is not in the same field or occupation.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
I think you can rely on what the minister said in the House.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you.
Since I have only a minute left, I would like to come back quickly to the question of the old age security program.
A proposal to raise the eligibility age for the old age security program is currently on the table. It will go from age 65 to age 67 starting in 2023. Can you confirm here that starting in 2023, a person who turns 65 in 2023 will receive $12,000 less in old age security benefits than a person who turned 65 the year before, and that the amounts to be cut will come to about $10 or $12 billion at that point, in 2023?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
The only change that will occur is that gradually, from 2023 to 2029, the age of eligibility will move from 65 to 67. That does not affect the entitlement to benefits. There are no reductions in the OAS benefits in the budget or in the bill before you.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
