Finance Committee on June 5th, 2012

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly am going to make a general comment, and then I'll speak specifically to why we are not going to be supporting the NDP amendment, which I'm sure they'll be shocked at.

From our perspective, this is just proposing targeted, common sense changes to make EI a more efficient program that supports job creation and removes the disincentives to work. It really is targeted at supporting unemployed Canadians and to quickly connect people to jobs.

I think there's a lot of misinformation out there in terms of what this is going to be and what it isn't going to be.

The Minister of HRSDC announced the proposed definition for suitable employment, which is going to be based on six dimensions: personal circumstances, working conditions, hours worked, commuting time, wages, and type of work. When you take these together, they are going to ensure that Canadians look for and accept jobs that meet their skill levels while ensuring they are better off working than being on EI.

In spite of some of the information out there to the contrary, people aren't going to have to drive across the country to take a job in Fort McMurray, even though my colleague would love them to be doing that. If they're carpenters, they're not going to have to take a job that's significantly reduced. I think those dimensions are really important. These changes are going to apply to all Canadians, regardless of where they work and live. Previous labour market attachment and the use of EI would be taken into account to determine the type of work and wages to be considered when looking for a job.

Again, I have to say that this is a reasonable approach, and it really accounts for the need to adapt expectations in terms of employment.

I think some of the measures that I'm really pleased about, that I think are going to be well received by people, involve having regular information in terms of what's available, instead of what has been spotty information, and having it linked with temporary foreign workers. If there's a job 10 minutes away, do they know about it, and do they have an option to get that job perhaps before the employer has to look elsewhere, in the temporary foreign worker program?

Again, we perceive that these are going to be well-received, sensible, practical, common sense solutions, and certainly we'll be pleased to support this section and this division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Brison, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

One of the things that has surprised me about these changes, and the response to them, is that I'm not hearing simply from the workers who draw on EI seasonally because they're in seasonal industries. The people I'm hearing from are the business owners, who are incredibly concerned about the capacity for their businesses to survive with these changes.

I'm hearing from individuals like David Ganong of Ganong chocolates, as an example, from St. Stephen, New Brunswick. I'm hearing from people in manufacturing, and of course the seasonal industries: forestry, fisheries, and farming. I'm hearing from the tourism industry.

I spoke with Dennis Campbell, at Ambassatours, who told me that in his business the seasonal benefits from EI enable him to have access to people who are trained well, who return on an annual basis, who are part of his company's professional team and enable his business to be competitive. These will have significant impacts.

I'm also hearing from business owners who say they are expressing their concerns to the CFIB. We also heard from the CFIB, at committee, that they are hearing from members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business who are in disagreement with the position of the CFIB.

Finally, we don't know yet on a granular basis what the impact will be on people and what the criteria of “personal situation” will be. Rural communities and places like the Maritimes or northern Ontario—rural communities across Canada—are struggling to survive.

Mr. Jean is disagreeing with me, but I represent a rural riding—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

You said “across Canada”.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I can tell you that rural communities in many parts of Canada are struggling to survive. These provisions could accelerate the depopulation, and in some cases the elimination, of rural communities in many parts of Canada. I think that is something we all have a responsibility to consider the repercussions of, and I don't think.... Again, we've not been given the specific criteria or what the impacts could be.

I think in the next couple of years, as those impacts are felt, it's going to create a very different landscape politically, potentially as well for Conservative MPs, representing some of those ridings in places like Atlantic Canada. That's what Conservative MPs are saying when you have quiet discussions with them. They're very concerned about these changes, and I suspect they're expressing them in the Conservative caucus, but they're not being heard.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have four speakers: Monsieur Mai, Monsieur Caron, Ms. Nash, and Mrs. McLeod.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it was Mr. Brison who talked about some industries being attacked. That will be an issue in places like Quebec. Mr. Caron talked about that at more length. There will be an issue with anything seasonal. A structure is being changed, and people with seasonal jobs are being told that, despite their training, they will have to find another job. Failing to do so will result in them receiving less money. They will have to accept a lower-paying job. The impact that will have is a genuine problem. Some industries have been mentioned in relation to that.

You can see that the whole omnibus bill is really reduction-oriented. The bill is trying to reduce anything that has to do with wages. It attacks pay equity. Witnesses have told us that the gap between the rich and the poor was widening. This phenomenon was already an issue for a number of previous governments. This type of bill contributes to the widening of that gap. This can be seen first-hand in the industry. It is structural. Industries that are already struggling and have to resort to employment insurance are being attacked. The government is now taking that tool away from those industries and forcing people to find other employment. Mr. Jean often says that everyone should go to their province, but I think that we sometimes forget the concrete side of things.

I want to come back to the government's lack of transparency. When the bill was introduced, we asked questions, but we received no answers. Now, the minister is giving us information, but only in snippets. That's why it is very difficult to determine what the exact impact will be. Regardless of that, we can already see that there will be some negative effects.

What is worrisome, in terms of the lack of transparency, is that we are always waiting for information, and when we do get it, it may be too late, since the decisions will already have been made. That once again has to do with a lack of transparency on the government's part. There is also a problem in terms of vision, given the fact that the gap between the rich and the poor is being widened. In addition, industries in certain regions of the country are being attacked. That's why the premiers of the Atlantic provinces have complained.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We're stretching relevance again. I'm looking at the specific clauses here. I'd just encourage the three members left on the list to speak to these specific provisions in these clauses.

I will go to Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there are a few specific elements I want to address, in particular the whole issue of suitable versus unsuitable employment. We are discussing what constitutes unsuitable employment, and the definition that goes with that. I am specifically referring to the announcement that the minister made 10 or so days ago. At that time, she defined what constituted suitable employment. It is entirely relevant for us to discuss those issues specifically and the announcement she made, given what we're talking about here.

I won't go on forever, since I don't want to repeat what Mr. Brison has already pointed out. Like the employers in his riding, those in my riding are the most concerned right now. They are considering paying employees to do nothing for two or three months during the off-season, just to make sure they don't lose their expertise. That is a real problem.

There are two things in particular I want to address.

The first is commuting time, which is one of the criteria the minister will use to determine whether employment is suitable or not. We're talking about an hour of travel time. In a bit city with suburbs, that may not seem all that unreasonable. In my riding, it would mean an unemployed worker living in Rimouski could be forced to accept a job in Rivière-du-Loup or Matane. That would require the person to travel 80, 90 or even 100 kilometres, meaning that, in order to take the job and not lose their benefits, they would have to spend $75 to $80 a week on gas to get to work in a neighbouring city. As I see it, some of the minister's conditions pose a problem.

There is another thing that poses a problem. I believe it was mentioned that the announced changes would result in lower wages or a downward trend in wages. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who loses their job. To keep your benefits, you would be forced to accept a relatively similar position at 70% of what you were making previously. And then, if for some reason, you should lose that job, you would be forced to accept another at 70% of the 70% you were making originally. Impossible? No, in fact, very possible. It could happen to people with all kinds of skills and qualifications, especially seasonal workers.

Is that such an inconceivable scenario? Even the Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), Bernard Valcourt, said on a Rimouski radio station that, logically, it could happen, in his view. He also said that was the reason we have minimum wage legislation in the first place. When the government claims that this measure is intended to solve the labour shortage problem, I'd say they're taking Quebeckers and Canadians for fools.

Some regions do have a labour shortage. But the government's position on that issue is based on the assumption that those who are unemployed have the skills the available jobs require. I haven't seen any evidence that is the case, not a shred. The government hasn't even tried to prove it is true.

There is one last point I want to raise with respect to the proposed changes. Provisions that protect workers, the unemployed and, in a sense, employers are disappearing altogether. I am referring specifically to the definition of what constitutes unsuitable employment, which is left to the minister's discretion. The minister or the cabinet can single-handedly make all of these employment insurance decisions, without going through Parliament.

The government talks about flexibility, and yet it does not invest one cent in the program. Employers and employees alone contribute to the EI fund, and yet the government has the power to make virtually every possible decision on the EI system, without having to consult the members who represent employers and employees. So we have serious reservations over how this reform was presented. First it comes in the form of amendments, and second it was hastily announced by the minister, to counter the widespread criticism that it drew from the opposition and the public alike, criticism that is entirely legitimate. The government did not address those concerns, the concerns expressed by the people in my riding, be they employers or employees. The reality of rural life seems to have been lost on the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Nash, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really see these changes in the Employment Insurance Act as part of an overall approach by this government to depress wages in Canada. We heard Mr. Martin talk earlier about the impact of the elimination of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which would undermine wages in the construction sector.

We certainly heard the minister announce in the House the change to the temporary foreign worker program, which would shorten the amount of time employers are required to search for Canadians to fill jobs. Then they can pay temporary foreign workers 15% less. There's no credible economist who believes that this will not depress wages in Canada.

Then we come to the EI provisions. They also will have the impact of depressing wages. The government would like to perpetuate the myth that somehow people aren't looking for work. In my city, in Toronto, fewer than 30% of unemployed workers even qualify for EI. And according to StatsCan, there are six unemployed workers for every job opening in Canada. So it's not as if people are not looking for work.

The reality is that we have a job shortage in this country. And we still have not regained the level of employment, in proportion to the population, that we had prior to the downturn in 2008. We still have elevated unemployment. So at the very time when there is a job shortage and an inability, for the majority of unemployed people, to even access EI, we're seeing a restriction on people's ability to get EI.

There's also the myth perpetuated by the government that somehow people have this EI dependency, as though it's substance abuse. Again, the reality is that most people don't even qualify for EI. Even among those who do, many qualify for just a very limited period of time. Remember that the maximum EI benefit is only 55% of a person's former wages. I don't know a lot of Canadians today who could take a 50% pay cut and think that somehow that's living high on the hog. Most people are living paycheque to paycheque. Personal debt is at an all-time high. While some employers might think that depressing wages has a short-term benefit, longer term it will be a net drag on the economy. It will slow the purchasing power of Canadians, and it will slow our growth if Canadians do not have purchasing power.

People may think that it is just people who lose their jobs who will be affected by the impact of these changes to EI, but the impact of depressing wages will affect all Canadians, or I guess 99% of Canadians. It will affect the ability of people in a variety of industries, not just in terms of making progress in improving their wages but in terms of even maintaining their wages and benefits. They will see that undermined by these changes to EI, because as we've heard from our colleagues here, the changes will force people, much more quickly, to take jobs outside their fields at a much lower rate of pay.

The current provisions describe what a suitable job is and what the job search needs to look like. It gives people time to adapt to unemployment so that they can find other jobs.

What's the point in a welder from New Brunswick taking a temporary job in the service sector when perhaps with a longer job search and a little more support, that person could go to Alberta and get a job in their profession, where there may be a shortage of welders at a given point?

It also seems very convenient, at a time when the government is pushing hard for a rapid expansion of pipeline building, an expansion in the energy sector, that hiring in this sector could be at a lower rate of pay. We've heard several members on the opposite side complain not only about a shortage but the cost of wages in that sector. This could have the impact, especially with the cancellation of the fair wage act, of reducing the standard of living and the wages of people in that sector.

It's only a few clauses in the budget implementation act. The minister did not provide a lot of details. We had ministers providing conflicting details. It was only after a lot of pressure in the House and in the media that during a break week, when Parliament wasn't sitting, the minister felt compelled to release more details about these changes. The key point is that it does concentrate more power in the hands of the minister who can make subsequent changes without having to bring them to Parliament. That could mean the downward pressure on wages and on unemployed workers could grow even stronger in the months and years to come.

We're going to be voting against most of these clauses for the reasons I and my colleagues have outlined. It's something that not just unemployed workers but all Canadians should be concerned about.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mrs. McLeod, please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hopefully, this is my opportunity to summarize. Certainly there's obviously a very profound disagreement on both sides.

First, if Canadians are concerned about this particular issue, what they're concerned about is the misinformation the opposition is spreading in terms of what we're trying to accomplish. When they're saying that a welder is going to have to take this job at a reduced wage that's far removed from his community, it is creating that concern.

The bottom line is what we are trying to accomplish. The suppression is another piece of.... I won't say what I think the suppression comment is.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, a point of information or clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

What is a point of information? Is it a point of order or not?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

No, it's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Then you can't interrupt Mrs. McLeod unless it's a point of order.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

It's a point of order, I guess, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I hope it's a point of order, then.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

It's something I had just said.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

What procedure of the committee does the point of order apply to?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Perhaps it's a point of information. I withdraw it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All right. Thank you.

Mrs. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I think the most important thing to remember is that for those who are unable to find employment, employment insurance will be there for them, as it always has been. At the same time, we know the minister is moving to streamline the temporary foreign worker program. That program is still going to be there. What we're strictly trying to do, again, is make some appropriate and common sense changes.

I know the officials have been waiting very patiently for a long time this evening.

Do you feel you have any technical information that's important to add to this conversation you've listened to?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you want to speak to the clauses in the bill? I would benefit from that myself, frankly. Is there any information you want to provide to us this evening?