I think when we start talking about cents in the rate, most people have a hard time figuring out what that actually means. I know I've never really paid attention to the rate I pay into EI; I just know I pay too much. But I would point out that with Mr. Lessard's amendment, this would work out to almost $200 per worker across the country. I think that's something people can relate to--$200 more that they would spend on EI, either directly or indirectly through their employers. Again, I think that's completely unrealistic.
There is kind of an irony here. I wrote down Mr. Cuzner's quote here. He says, “Some Canadians do need help at times.” I acknowledge that. I think actually there is a reason we have an EI system, and in spirit, it's a good program. I would point out that the changes we're talking about here—and we've talked about many different changes over time in this committee—as with those other changes, will actually hinder our ability to help the people who need the help.
I will make the argument. The research shows that when social program funding goes out of control, poverty actually goes up, because there's a point at which you're actually hurting the people you're trying to help.
Think about it this way. As the economy grows, we have more opportunities for people to work and we have more money for social programs. The current situation is that most of the growth in the economy right now, the Canadian economy—we have to think about this in the big picture—is happening out west, but as we heard from one of the witnesses from Atlantic Canada, there are some areas of growth in Atlantic Canada as well. In what we're talking about with this particular bill, you can't deny that whatever you say about the bill, it certainly is not creating an incentive to work. If anything, it's going to create a disincentive to solving the labour problems we have in the country. It will help some people individually, but it's going to create a disincentive overall to contribute to the overall economy.
In Alberta, we have some significant challenges. We're bringing over temporary foreign workers to help solve that problem, but we're not even close. Mr. Godin talked about people coming out west to work. We're not even remotely in the ballpark in terms of the labour we need; therefore, the economy of the country is hurt by that, because the economy is not growing at the rate at which it should be. Therefore, taxes aren't being collected, money is not going into the EI program to fund some of these things you're talking about funding, and the overall economy is hurt. The overall ability to fund social programs is actually hurt by that in other parts of the country, because of equalization.
The solution isn't necessarily to force people to move. I know you like to use that kind of talking point, but the reality is that that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who want to move coming out, not necessarily even moving but coming out and working and perhaps going back to their ridings and using the money they make to create jobs, by spending it in their own ridings, as we've seen in Cape Breton, as we've seen in Newfoundland, in some recent stories. That's helping the situation in those ridings. In fact, there are now people who are able to work in construction in those ridings, building houses or whatnot, who otherwise wouldn't be working, because of that situation.
I have a constituent with a company in my riding, a friend of mine, who actually expressed the same concerns you have about people moving across the country. He said, “You know, there has to be a way that we as employers can tap into the situation right now and maybe come up with some creative solutions to transfer some of the advantage we have, some of the labour needs we have, to other parts of the country so that people can actually work and contribute in their own part of the country and do things that are transferable. We have to be creative in that way.”
I think this kind of approach actually creates a disincentive to that creativity. That's what I believe. At the end of the day, if we shrink the economy overall in the big picture, if we shrink the economy in certain parts of the country, whether it be out west or whether it be parts of Atlantic Canada where they need workers and can't find them, no matter where it is in the country, we have less opportunity for people and we have fewer dollars to spend on social programs.
At the end of the day, that's exactly what this bill is going to accomplish—less opportunity, less money for social programs.