Okay.
Well, clause 603 we're against.
Clause 604 allows for insurable earnings to be calculated in the best weeks, not just total weeks. Some regions will lose when the pilot program ends. Workers in all regions will benefit from the introduction of a best-weeks' calculation. If I understand that correctly, then we would be for that.
Now on clauses 605 to 619, not including the proposed amendment at this point, the government is asking Canadians to just trust the minister. From our side, we don't think the bill gives us enough detail in that particular area. Again, it's like looking at the Canada Pension Plan. The Canada Pension Plan is funded through the premiums that employers pay and the premiums that workers pay. EI is funded through Canadian workers in exactly the same way. It's an insurance program purchased by those two groups of people for when people are in crisis or if there's a layoff.
In some instances, particularly in the east coast provinces, there's a lot of part-time work, seasonal work, and you don't have the alternatives to turn to, so people have come to rely on unemployment insurance, as we used to call it, which is now called employment insurance. Now we're looking at the potential that a person who leaves one job will have to accept a 30% cut to take other employment in work that's outside of their field.
Earlier tonight we had Pat Martin here, who is a carpenter. I recall in the eighties there was a huge downturn in construction in Ontario, and we had something like a 63% unemployment rate in those skilled trades. Now you're saying to people they're going to have to give up the standards they're used to having.
You'll recall one of our witnesses, economist Andrew Jackson, who was here. He said:
In the high unemployment regions in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, there is something in the range of 10 unemployed workers for every job vacancy that's reported by employers.
He continued:
It would seem to us that we're very far from a situation where there are jobs going begging because of unemployed workers turning them down.
And that's what we hear from the government side: the implication that workers don't want to work.
He also noted that particularly
in the higher unemployment regions where wages are relatively low to begin with...obliging some subgroup of the unemployed to take significant wage cuts could further depress wages.
I think we're opening the door here to driving down the wages in those areas that are hard-pressed already
So we have a great number of concerns.
How's my time, Mr. Chair?