Mr. Speaker, during the first hour of debate on the bill, I spoke briefly about some of the substantive measures this government is taking to help Canadians get back to work and to train for the jobs of the future. I also mentioned some of the actions we have taken to protect Canadian jobs.
One of the highlights of our job protection efforts is our improvement of the work sharing program. We have extended the duration of work sharing agreements by 14 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks. As the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development shared with the House late last month, over 110,000 Canadians are benefiting right now from our expansion of the work sharing program. Those are jobs that are being protected.
The bill of course deals with the employment insurance program. As discussed numerous times before in this place, this is an area where our government has taken significant action to help Canadians through our economic action plan.
To help Canadians through the challenges posed by the current economic situation, we have extended EI benefits by five additional weeks through a national expansion of an existing pilot program that was focused in areas of high unemployment. These five weeks will help unemployed Canadians who need it most.
We have also increased the maximum duration of benefits available under the EI program from 45 weeks to 50 weeks. Further to this, we are introducing a new initiative for long tenured workers who are taking training, allowing those workers to receive EI benefits up to a maximum of 104 weeks while they pursue their training.
As the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said during the first hour of debate on Bill C-280, the proposed NDP legislation before us has not been costed and it does not take into account the future potential unintended consequences on the labour market that these proposed changes may have.
Any proposals for reform to the EI program need to be considered comprehensively within the context of who is going to pay for these changes while also taking into account what impact these proposals would have on helping Canadians get back to work so they can get jobs to put food on the table and provide for their families.
I want to reiterate that our government recognizes the challenges faced by those who have lost their jobs in these difficult times. That is why we want to ensure that any action we take is effective in both the short and the longer term.
That is also why we are monitoring the effectiveness of our measures, to make sure that the EI system is working and responding effectively to the evolving economic circumstances.
What we will not do is implement this Liberal-NDP 360 hour, 45 day work year idea.
The opposition can say what it wants about this scheme, and we know that it will. The fact is that this irresponsible proposal would result in a massive increase in job killing payroll taxes that would hurt workers and businesses alike, at a time when they can least afford it. This irresponsible proposal certainly would not help Canadians find new jobs or get new skills. It would simply add billions and billions more to the tax burden on Canadians.
Members do not have to take it from me. Let us see what others are saying about this Liberal-NDP plan.
The sponsor of the bill herself, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, said on Monday, in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, that “a payroll tax increase may be necessary”.
The Liberals realized this when they stated in a press release back in October that the NDP proposal would result in an “employment insurance premium hike”. They seem to have forgotten that now. It is striking that the Liberal Party would be honest with Canadians when it is looking for their votes during an election but would change its tune now.
It should also be noted that on April 11, 2008, the Liberal EI critic, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, a colleague of mine on the HR committee, said in committee:
It's my view that if you get rid of the regional rates and there are changes forced on the EI system because of the economic circumstances, those in the [high unemployment] regions will be hurt disproportionately.
He also said that the “cost is pretty significant” to do this 360 hour, 45 day work year plan. He said we should “keep the regional rates to protect those people in high unemployment areas”.
He said that just a year ago.
Let us see what others are saying about the Liberal-NDP 45 day work year proposal.
Harvey Enchin said in the Vancouver Sun on May 26:
The Liberal option not only seems illogical but it would raise the federal deficit--and probably taxes--while doing nothing to address the fact that many of the jobs that have been lost are not coming back. The Conservative government is right to reject it.
The federal government is on the right track with investment in skills training The federal government is on the right track with investment in skills training and transition programs.
Here is what Don Martin, of the Calgary Herald, said on the same day:
But just 360 hours to qualify? For a benefit payment period that’s just shy of a year? That’s a bit rich, even for Liberals.
Yet there are many better ways to reform the system, starting with the Conservative’s reannounced $500-million to stretch benefits for long-term workers....
I agree with that and I think a good many Canadians do as well. Unlike the opposition's rhetoric and irresponsible plans, our government's economic action plan is helping Canadians get new skills for new jobs and is helping Canadians through these tough economic times. Unlike the opposition, on this side of the House we will not force all working Canadians and businesses to pay more taxes for this proposal.
Our government is helping and will continue to help Canadians get the training they need for the jobs of tomorrow. We will continue to help preserve jobs so that hard-working Canadians can continue to pay their mortgages and provide for the needs of their families. Our economic action plan is providing additional support to Canadians in a responsible, coordinated way, and we will continue to do so.
The proposal before us is not responsible and that is why we on this side of the House cannot support it .