Debates of Oct. 1st, 2012

Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the hon. member for an answer, I would like to remind all hon. members to direct your comments and questions to the Chair rather than to your colleague.

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague from Brant is right. I know that he also comes from a business background. I will stand to be corrected on this but I believe 80-some per cent of all jobs in Canada are supplied by medium and small businesses. That speaks volumes right there.

As I alluded to in my speech, I was watching my local junior A team playing hockey on Saturday night and I asked a guy that I know how business was and he talked about it and the shortage of skills. We got on to our EI changes and he was hoping that some of those were going to help him over the winter. He has been very fortunate.

To the member for Brant who just commented about small business and small enterprise, this country would not be what it is today without them.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the NDP motion before the House. I know we have been in the House all day debating this very important motion and we are getting toward the end of the debate today, so I am happy to have an opportunity to speak.

I thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who brought forward the motion, as well as the member for Hamilton Mountain. I know both as our EI critic and as our HRSDC critic, they have worked really hard on this file.

I have been listening to the debate all day and it is very interesting to hear the mantra, the message, the narrative, the talking points of the Conservatives who are saying that all the opposition does, the NDP and the Liberals, is oppose everything. I really want to set the record straight. This motion is an opportunity to deal with something that is very specific, and that is the working while on claim pilot project for EI. It is a very specific motion. The reason it is very specific is because we are trying to address something that is clearly not working. Therefore, for the Conservatives to come out with this blanket black and white statement that the opposition is opposed to everything, is simply not true. It is sort of the big lie technique, as I heard one of our members say earlier.

I remember a few budgets ago where the NDP successfully convinced the Conservative government to make changes to EI and to include additional funds. As a result, we voted for those measures. We look at legislation, budgets and motions before the House based on their merit. If the working while on claim pilot project were actually working for people, we would be supporting it.

The whole point of today's debate is this. We have been inundated in our offices across the country by real people who are on EI and who have a terrible time with this so-called pilot project that is meant to help them. Let us be very clear about this. This is not a motion just to oppose the government for the sake of opposing. This is a motion to demonstrate and focus the attention of the House on a project that is really important to hundreds of thousands of people and the fact that it is not working for them. We want it to work for them.

I will read the motion. It states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the new Working While on Claim pilot project is: (a) not benefiting the vast majority of EI recipients who are able to find employment; (b) creating a disincentive to take part-time work; and (c) leaving low income Canadians worse off than before; and that the House call on the government to take steps to fix Working While on Claim immediately.

The motion is very straightforward. It is looking for a pragmatic approach to say to the government that its claims that the project is helping just about everyone is not true.

I forgot, Mr. Speaker, to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beaches—East York.

The motion is for us to draw attention to something that is very important.

We have heard the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development repeatedly claim, “the vast majority of EI recipients working while on claim will benefit from the new pilot project”. It has to be on the record. The facts are irrefutable that this is not the case. Many people are not only not benefiting, they are hurting and taking home less money now than they were under the previous program. There is something wrong with that picture.

Members of the House do not have to take my word for it. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission is an independent body that analyzes what goes on with EI. It submitted a report to the government on these changes in May, so it is a very recent report. It estimates that while 403,000 Canadians would benefit, 240,000 would be negatively affected.

If we do the math on this, we can see that it means that nearly four in ten EI recipients will be negatively affected by this pilot program. Any idea that this will help the vast majority of EI claimants is simply not true. It is really a cruel thing to keep saying that people are being helped when in actual fact they are not, certainly not the vast majority. This debate is focusing very much on the facts.

The parliamentary secretary, the member for Simcoe—Grey, claimed on September 24 “those who work more will be able to keep more when it comes to their employment insurance”. As we see from the report from the commission, and as we our constituents, this is simply not the case.

I hope members across the floor recognize that we are not just doing something to oppose for the sake of opposing. We are trying to be proactive and constructive by bringing forward a motion for correction.

My colleague from Hamilton Mountain earlier today gave a wonderful outline of why she knew it would be very unlikely that the motion would work. It is unfortunate and in a way sad and disappointing that the government is not willing to acknowledge the problems that exist with this program. It begs the question as to what really lies underneath these program changes.

Many members have made the point today that employers and workers contribute to the EI program. It is not a government program, but it is an important part of Canada's social safety network. Unemployed Canadians need to be able to rely on it when they are in difficulty. It begs the question as to why the government would do such a shoddy job in bringing forward a program that will not in any way live up to the goals and objectives that those members themselves have put forward. That is why we have the motion today.

Many of us could speak at length about the overall situation with EI just from our experience in dealing with constituents. It is really incredible to see how this program has taken a dive over the years. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas pointed out earlier that some research done by CANSIM showed just how much the EI program had changed in the country. We know now that less than 40% of unemployed Canadians receive EI benefits. That number is higher for women and seasonal workers. Women are often in part-time work so they fair even less well than that general statistic. Surely this should raise concerns for us.

In the 1990s, 70% to 90% of Canadians who were unemployed were eligible for EI. The rules were relatively fair and they did the job that they were designed to do, and that was to help people through difficult periods of unemployment. We have seen a downward spiral, which started with a Liberal government that made reforms, but things became worse. Now we are at today's situation where even a so-called pilot project that is designed to help people keep a bit of money while working is hitting the people who are most vulnerable, the people who are making the lowest wages. That is patently unfair.

I hope the members of the Conservative government across the way will consider the motion on its merit. I would like to prove the member for Hamilton Mountain wrong. She gave a great speech earlier. I hope she might be wrong and the motion might go through. I hope the Conservative government will recognize that there is a genuine attempt here to show what needs to be done to the program. The motion calls on the government to make the changes so unemployed Canadians can receive the help they need.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really admire my colleague's optimism.

On the other hand, I have to wonder if the Conservatives live on the same planet as the rest of us and if they know Canada as I know it. It seems they often tend to ignore reality.

For instance, for someone who lives in Watson Lake, in Yukon, there is a town on both sides of it—one is six hours away and the other is seven hours away. That is a little far to go to work in the next town. The same is true for many towns at the end of peninsulas, at the other end of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for instance.

In the day-to-day reality of people's lives, things do not work the way the Conservatives predict they will.

Does my colleague think this is a question of ignorance or apathy on the Conservatives' part?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do try to be optimistic. I have a feeling the member for Hamilton Mountain will be proved right when we have the vote tomorrow night.

I think there is a deep problem here. We have a government that is suspicious of people. There is always this assumption that people are trying to get away with something. The fact is that most people on EI, or any income assistance program, are there because of genuine need and they play by the rules.

The new rules that have come in, whether it is having to work much further away, or this pilot project, are really designed to frustrate people. That is really regrettable. Surely the system should work for people. It should be accessible, it should be understandable and it should be available when people need it.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the House an email that came to my office today.

I have been back and forth with this gentleman, Mr. Pink, although he says that his father's name was Mr. Pink, not his. He was in the fish business for 30 years, mainly in Louisbourg, which has a strong, proud tradition of being a very successful fishing port.

He has said that the businesses are going through a great difficulty retaining skilled workers. They have been drawing from communities around them for the last while. When they are trying to develop new product, sometimes it is just a day or a day and a half of work. People have to drive all the way to Louisbourg, which can be a considerable drive away from those other communities. He says that people cannot be blamed for not driving to Louisbourg with the price of gas.

He asks how this is ensuring claimants always benefit by accepting available work? That is what we are trying to get at. He goes on to say that the minister is clearly showing she has no idea what she is talking about on this pilot project.

The question for my colleague, from Mr. Pink, is this. How does this ensure claimants always benefit by accepting available work?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is it is not giving that assurance at all. I know what the member means. I think we have all shared the frustration that the minister does not really seem to be aware of the actual impacts or consequences of the program.

Had the government bothered to talk to people on EI and find out what the heck was going on, maybe we would have a better program and we would not be here debating it today.

As we have seen in so many instances, and to answer the fellow who wrote the email, the government did not bother to go out and consult with people or even employers. There are in fact disincentives in this pilot program that mean, particularly for lower paid workers or workers who get just a day, a day and a half or two days of work, people are losing money. Why on earth would anybody do that?

This is a terrible flaw in the program. We are asking the government to address the problems and make it work.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in favour of the motion put forward by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I am also very honoured to share the time with my colleague from Vancouver East, although I am not sure if she reciprocates. She just about forgot me, but never mind, I am up now.

The motion that we are talking about today focuses on the Conservative government's provisions to the working while on claim pilot program and calls on the government to take steps to fix the program immediately.

Some heady claims have been made about the government's revisions to this program. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has been quite adamant on two claims: first, that the vast majority of employment insurance recipients will benefit from these revisions; and second, that everyone who works will keep more. Her parliamentary secretary, the member for Simcoe—Grey, has been equally unequivocal in these very same claims for the revised working while on claim pilot. However, all is not what it is claimed to be.

According to a recent publication of the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation entitled, “What the New EI Rules Mean”:

EI beneficiaries with earned incomes that are around half the size of their weekly EI benefits (or smaller) will generally see a decrease in total income. This is because they will experience a 50 per cent clawback on income that was previously exempt from any clawback. EI beneficiaries with earned incomes that are greater than roughly half the size of their weekly EI benefits will generally experience an increase in total income, because they will experience only a 50 per cent claw back on income that was previously subject to a 100 per cent clawback.

So much for the claim that “everyone who works will keep more”.

What about the “vast majority” benefiting from the revisions?

According to a May 2012 report by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 240,000 EI recipients stand to be negatively impacted by these revisions. That is about 40% of all EI recipients, which is a far cry from the vast majority by any reasonable definition.

The commission expressed its concern about disincentives built into these revisions and notes:

...claimants who currently work a few hours a week while on claim, below the current allowable threshold, may decide to not work these potential hours as they would be subject to the 50% earnings exemption from the first dollar earned.

Compounding the problem here is the fact that those who are adversely impacted by these changes are those who can least absorb this financial setback. It is those who earned income that was less than half their claim who will be penalized under these changes.

It is not the operating assumption or principles of the NDP that workers on EI need incentives to look for and secure work. However, what the working while on claim program is meant to do is remove disincentives to work. In this, the revisions to the program fail miserably in that it has put in place, by way of removing the shift in clawback, a very obvious penalty for about 40% of EI recipients seeking to get back into the labour market. This is moving backwards at a time when employment insurance, properly managed, would provide an opportunity to move forward for Canadians.

With 1.4 million Canadians still unemployed, and I would note 300,000 more than pre-recession levels, we should be extending EI stimulus measures to wrestle down current unacceptably high levels of unemployment in this country.

With most Canadians living paycheque to paycheque, we should be eliminating the two-week waiting period. It must be remembered that employment insurance is not available to those who voluntarily leave their work. Therefore, there should be nothing punitive in a system that is intended to provide support to those who find themselves involuntarily without work. This, after all, is an insurance scheme that workers have paid into in an effort to save themselves from financial ruin should they lose their livelihoods.

Further to this point, and to ensure that EI provides meaningful benefit levels, the rate of benefits should make their way to 60% of insurable earnings.

It has also been noted by many that periods of unemployment are getting longer. This signals the need for improvements in the quality and monitoring of training and retraining programs.

As the last proposition, I would propose that we return the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work, irrespective of the regional rate of unemployment. This is a critically important proposition. Since the mid-1990s, the number of unemployment persons eligible for EI benefits has fallen by half, from about 80% to 90% down to about 40%. It has been estimated that Liberal government policy changes to the Employment Insurance Act in the 1990s are responsible for about half of this decline in EI eligibility.

Certainly there has been an obvious and precipitous decline in eligibility in the wake of the stricter eligibility requirements introduced by the Liberal government.

The other part of the equation that explains this rapid decline in eligibility are the long-term changes in labour market that have been ignored by both Liberal and now Conservative governments.

We should consider the following: Since 1976, the number of multiple job holders has increased by 150%; the number of part-time job holders has increased by 55%; and self-employment has increased by 29%. As one expert on employment insurance, Professor Leah Vosko, said:

Workers least well-protected [by EI] are clustered in part-time and temporary forms of paid employment and self-employment, and in sectors of the economy long viewed as ancillary but experiencing considerable growth in recent decades, such as sales and services....

This is a particularly important analysis for my riding of Beaches—East York and my city of Toronto. The changing labour market has reshaped my riding and my city socially and economically. I would note that while there has been a 59% increase in the number of temporary and contract jobs right across this country over the past decade, over that same decade there was a 68% increase in Toronto. Part of this story too has been the loss of well over 100,000 manufacturing jobs in Toronto, even pre-2008 recession.

Again, Professor Vosko was quoted in a recent study on the EI system as follows:

A notable overarching finding is that EI’s entry requirements disfavour part-time workers. For instance, in urban areas and metropolises, where entry requirements tend to be highest, more than 50 per cent of workers in this group do not meet the 700 hour threshold.

Insensitivity of regular benefit requirements to the changing nature of employment in this formula contributes to disentitlement of workers falling outside the norm of the full-time permanent job in low-unemployment regions where workers in part-time and temporary forms of employment face high entry requirements.

So it is that, in Toronto, less than 25% of unemployed workers are even eligible for EI benefits, far less than the national average for eligibility, which hovers around 40%, and well below the pre-Liberal reform levels when 56% of unemployed workers in Toronto were eligible.

There was a time in our history that employment insurance played a critical social and economic role by countering poverty and limiting income disparity in this country. Over time, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have undermined the effectiveness of our employment insurance system to accomplish these goals which has been done both through deliberate changes to the system and by way of the sheer failure of successive federal governments to adapt the system to changing labour market conditions.

This, of course, is to say nothing of the failure of successive federal governments to ensure that Canada has labour markets that provide good, productive jobs, jobs that can support families and keep Canadians out of poverty.

In the meantime, I urge the government to fix immediately the harm it has caused with its revisions, the working while on claim program.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question but I will throw a question in at the end.

If this is something deliberate, then I am missing what the rationale is behind why the Conservatives made this change. If it came to their attention that they were hurting the most vulnerable, I would think a caring government would want to make a change. Yet, it continues to attack the NDP. The Conservatives are talking all around it over there today and not addressing the problem.

We are sort of befuddled. We think this can be fixed and, obviously, the official opposition does too, which is why it brought forward this motion today. What can the government do to fix this problem so that people will no longer be hurt?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition know this can be fixed. However, as I have sat here and listened all day to the commentary, I am a little more on the side of the member for Hamilton Mountain than the member for Vancouver East. Although I respect my colleague for her optimism, I do not think one needs advanced degrees in semantics and pragmatism to listen to this language and understand that what the government is trying to do is force low wage workers off the EI system and into the workforce. I think the language the government uses is “encouraging low wage workers off the EI system”, but it is based on the presumption that there all kinds of jobs in this country that are empty and want to be filled. However, the latest statistics I have seen show that there are six unemployed persons for every vacancy in this country, so I am not sure what labour market the government is looking to.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's comments about the nature of work. He talked about people often having multiple sources of income as if that is a bad thing, or the nature of a job being much more flexible and different.

My question is a sincere one. The nature of work in 2012 is very different from 1912. We now have the Internet, mobility, the ability to work from home and all of those things, especially in my constituency where many people have multiple sources of income and are happy to do it. They log, farm or perhaps work at a local tourist lodge and their lives are built around that kind of economic activity.

I would like a comment from him about the nature of work in 2012. Perhaps there are more opportunities out there than in the older model that was in place, let us say, in 1912.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the opportunities for folks in Toronto in terms of the labour market are as I described in my speech. When we talk about part-time and contract work, we are generally speaking about low wage work in the service industry. The fact that people have to cobble a number of low wage jobs together becomes very difficult in a city like Toronto where the government just turned down a very sensible, practical and economically viable motion by my colleague for Trinity—Spadina for a national public transit strategy. To get from one side of the city to the other in Toronto these days takes an extraordinarily long time.

To have to cobble together low wage part-time jobs in the city of Toronto is an enormous problem, especially for people trying to raise families in what is the most expensive city to live in Canada. In Toronto from 2000 to 2005, prior to the recession, we saw a 42% increase in the working poor. I am talking about the working poor. Those are the kinds of jobs that are now available to people in Toronto. There is a hollowing out of the middle-class in Toronto and that is the job market reality for people in Toronto.

This is not about hunting, fishing or logging. This is about people working in minimum wage jobs in a big, expensive city and trying to raise families. It is impossible.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the opposition motion today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette and I am happy to hear what he has to say, after my 10 minutes.

I would like to make a couple of introductory comments.

I have been here all day, listening to the discussion and the debate on both sides of the House. I think what is important for Canadians to understand, and for us here in the House to understand, is that this is a pilot project. By the nature of a pilot project, we are looking at what we can do to make things better. Instead of rolling something out that is a fait accompli, we are rolling out a pilot project, making some changes, making some improvements, trying to make things better for all Canadians. In this case, through the EI system, the employment insurance program, we are trying to make improvements. We are trying to make sure there is an opportunity for Canadians to gain full-time employment. It is really about opportunity. That is the end goal. It is the end goal for all of us here. It is the end goal for most Canadians, most family members. They would like to provide for their families through full-time employment.

That is not the case in every part of the country, or at any time of the year, or during what we have had recently with the recessional aspects of what has happened to the economy worldwide and throughout parts of Canada. Therefore they have to take up part-time work. They have to take opportunities that are available. Some of them are for one day, some three days and some four days.

I am not going to get into the semantics of arguing, taking a specific case or a case where somebody works two days or one day, this many hours or that many hours. The concept here is that we are trying, through a pilot project on working on claim, to get people to be able to keep more of their money when they are working while they are also on employment insurance.

Under the previous system, there was a disincentive to work. Under this system that we are piloting, we are trying to encourage people to work.

The whole concept is an incentive to work, so that if people are only working a day or two a week and there is an opportunity, now we are hoping that they will be able to work three or four days a week, maybe five days a week. Before, they were able to keep so much of their money. It may mean one or two or three part-time jobs. I know it is difficult. It is a balancing act for families and individuals who have to do that. I know it is a lot of work. In my community of Burlington, there are a lot of people who are doing that. They are juggling different jobs to be able to make ends meet.

The concept here in this pilot project is to encourage that, promote that, so that in the end, in most cases, in many cases, often part-time work leads to full-time employment. It is better for your resumé. It is good experience. It brings income into people's homes. It also gives them an opportunity to have more money and to further themselves and their career.

I am not going to get into the discussion about what the NDP would do. We all know that the NDP campaign had a carbon tax in it. It had the $21 billion piece in there. But that is not what we are here today to talk about. However, that is the kind of thing the NDP was promoting. We all know that the more taxes people pay the harder it is on the lower-income individuals in this country because it will be applied to everything, whether it is gasoline, groceries and so on. Those are essential needs, not luxury items, and that carbon tax, that additional tax the New Democrats have been promoting, will be a tax on everything.

What we need to talk about is getting people back to work, making sure we have a tax system that is fair and that we move forward.

Through our economic action plan, we have been able to create a little over three-quarters of a million jobs, net new jobs, in this country. That is a net of the job market that was available prior to the recession.

The economic action plan has been very aggressive and very active in the marketplace. It has been successful. It has been able to deliver jobs, deliver opportunity.

What is really important about those jobs is that they are not all part-time jobs. They are mostly full-time employment. That is what we need, that is what families are looking for and that is what will help the economic growth, the productivity of this country.

Often we compare ourselves to other countries, and one area in which Canada is lagging behind, in my view and in the view of many economists, is productivity. These programs we are doing here, including the programs we have put through EI, have assisted in our productivity. We are trying to make Canadians and the Canadian economy more productive, efficient and effective than other economies around the world and we are being successful, not just because of the government's programs but because of Canadians' will to work, to make a difference and to add value to their families, to their country and to their community.

I applaud all Canadians who are out there looking for work and doing what they can and taking up part-time jobs. There is no doubt that it is a difficult task, whether juggling family commitments or other commitments in terms of being in certain places at certain times and moving to different jobs. That is why our EI programs are important, to make that happen.

Earlier today I heard that it is not our money. That is absolutely right. It is not our money. It is the employers' and the employees' money. However, the vast majority of employers in this country, which supply funds to this program, do not lay off people. They do not collect themselves. It is for the potential of their employees losing their jobs or being laid off. The vast majority of employees of this country never collect EI. They pay into the system all their working lives and never have to collect, because it is an insurance program.

I do not want to collect EI and I do not know many Canadians who want to collect EI, but it is an important social net that Canada has developed and it is a good social net. Somebody needs to make sure we manage the money and the program so it works for those who actually need it. We need to speak up and be able to develop programs to make sure that pool of cash is there. We as a government have decided, and rightfully so, that EI money should be used for EI. That is unlike previous governments, which have used the EI fund for other purposes. It is now the law that EI money has to be used on EI programs.

The other area in which I am very proud of our government is that we have done a lot in the area of poverty. EI is an insurance program that is a bridge between jobs and opportunities and things that are happening. However, it obviously affects the income levels of Canadians and it is an important safety net for us as an income support program. We have done a lot and I am very proud of this government. We have the lowest poverty rates in Canada of any government in the history of Canada, and I am very proud of that.

My community is mainly made up of small and medium-sized businesses. The largest business in my community is 800 people and the vast majority are small and medium-sized businesses. People in my riding have come to see me who have relied on the EI system.

In terms of poverty in my area, I am very proud of this government's support for seniors. This is National Seniors Day and on the housing side, supporting low-income seniors, we have been able to develop a couple of new housing developments in my riding to help support seniors. On National Seniors Day, I thank the government for its efforts on that.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share a reflection and ask the member to comment on it.

If the aim of these changes in the program is to encourage people to work, then why do that through a process of threats as opposed to answering some of the issues that have been problematic with Service Canada and the EI system accessibility for quite a while now, for the last year, by making it easier for people to access EI services both online and through direct help?

There has been talk from the member's side about people not knowing where the jobs are and so why not put more of an effort to making sure they understand and see where those jobs are, because as my colleague said earlier, the nature of work has changed and that is not a bad thing? Why is the government not making it easier, as opposed to penalizing people who are trying to use the EI system?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see where the Conservative Government of Canada is threatening individuals on EI.

In fact, we have enhanced the program in the sense that if people are on EI and looking for work, there are job alerts in terms of what opportunities might be available in their area or skill set that they indicated during the EI process. They get that twice a day now. It used to be once a week, maybe every couple of weeks, that people would hear from the EI office.

We are encouraging people. Encouraging people is not threatening people. We have an EI hiring credit. We have brought in an apprentice incentive grant. There are opportunities for apprentices who need tools, some support for that. Everything we are doing is supportive.

We are not threatening even one soul. We are making sure the system is there so people can take advantage of the opportunities in this country as they become available.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the crux of the issue today is that in the past people could work and earn up to 40% of their EI benefit and not have any of that clawed back. Now in the new system, 50¢ of every dollar is clawed back. What that amounts to is a 50% marginal tax rate on income. That is a disincentive for people to work.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that. I have heard a lot of weeping and wailing about the carbon tax from the other side of the floor, and now the Conservatives plan to impose a 50% marginal income tax.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in actual fact this pilot program is giving people the opportunity to work more hours and keep more of the money they earn and still continue to collect EI.

It has gone from where people could keep some of it, to a maximum, to now where they can actually keep more of it, on a percentage basis. It is not a disincentive. It is actually the opposite. It is an incentive for people to find more work. People might be only working one day a week, six hours a day, which might be what is available, but if they are able to find more work, even if it is part-time, up to three days a week, they will be able to keep more of the money they earn under this pilot project. It is an incentive to work, not a disincentive.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague mentioned a little earlier in his speech that employment insurance should serve as a bridge for someone who has just lost his or her job.

I do not disagree with that, but it raises the following question: why will the Conservatives not adopt the NDP proposal to eliminate the two-week waiting period? That delay prevents people who have lost their jobs from meeting their families' needs, because it takes several weeks for the first EI cheque to arrive.

I think this is an excellent measure that the Conservatives should adopt.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague opposite that it is an insurance program, and it is a normal process to have a two-week waiting period.

I do agree that we should continue to do what we can from an administrative and effectiveness point of view to make sure that individuals who do need EI, after their waiting period, get their cheques as quickly as possible.

I know the minister has been working on making sure we improve our processes to be able to make that happen quicker.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the topic at hand I want to say how disappointed I was in the response to my question by the member for Beaches—East York. The contempt that he has for rural communities and natural resource industries was proudly on display. I guess the rest of the caucus has been infected with the mission and message of its leader, who wants to bring natural resource industries to their knees via a carbon tax and excess regulations.

I would remind the member opposite and all members of the House that at the current time it is the natural resource industries that are carrying the country. I proudly represent a natural resource constituency. The member for Hamilton Centre often extolls the virtues of Hamilton's steel industry and so on. I would remind members opposite that the steel has to come from somewhere. It is dug out of the ground in mines in rural Canada. It would behoove members opposite, especially members of the NDP, to remember this.

As the final government speaker of the day regarding the topic at hand, I would like to talk about why the motion should not be supported by the House.

We heard from the relevant minister, the parliamentary secretary and several government members about how successful our economic action plan has been. We are talking about over 770,000 net new jobs, 90% of those being full-time jobs. As of last Friday, it was shown that our GDP continues to grow, in fact beating market expectations. There are 350,000 more Canadians working in Canada today than at any previous point in history. Poverty for seniors, adults and children has declined from 40 year highs under the previous Liberal government to historic lows. Over one million Canadians have been removed from the tax rolls completely because of our low-tax plan for jobs and growth, and that is truly a remarkable achievement. These are all indications that Canadians are better off under our stable national majority Conservative government. Now is certainly not the time for risky economic experiments.

Members opposite sneer and laugh when we bring up their proposed $21 billion carbon tax as if that is some big joke. It is not a joke. It was in their platform, that $21 billion comes from them. Canadians are going to know that if the NDP had its way, it would do what it does best, pick their pockets.

Canadians understand that the global economy is fragile. There are challenges around the world. We can see what happens when a country's finances get out of control by looking at what is going on in Europe on our TV screens every night. That is why Canadians voted in the last election to put their trust in our Conservative Prime Minister's low-tax plan for jobs and growth.

The changes to EI that were announced in economic action plan 2012 continue through with the good work we are doing to ensure that Canadians are always better off working than not. Under the new working while on claim pilot project, we are encouraging EI claimants to pursue and accept all opportunities for work. As is always the case, we are working to ensure our programs fulfill our goals.

I talked earlier about the constituency I represent. My people are free people. They farm. They log. They ranch. They are self-employed. They are proud to be free, proud to be self-reliant and proud to be independent. The dignity of work is something that my constituents truly appreciate.

I can assure the House that under this new program the majority of people who work while on a claim will benefit and will be better off. The changes we are proposing are designed to help Canadians get back to work more quickly.

As a result of the strong leadership of our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance, who by all accounts is considered the best finance minister in the world, Canada is leading the G7 in job growth. I never tire of saying 770,000 net new jobs, most of them permanent jobs. However, we are still currently experiencing job and labour shortages in many occupations and regions of this country. In short, we cannot afford to have Canadians sitting at home unaware of the demand for their talent and skills. This skills and labour shortage will only be magnified by our aging population and by competition from other nations for skilled workers.

This is part of the reason the government is working to coordinate the temporary foreign worker program with the EI program to help connect unemployed Canadians with available jobs in their local area.

The jobs are out there. According to Stats Canada this spring, there were over 250,000 job vacancies each month across the country. In my own constituency, the potash mines and the trucking industry are crying for workers. Indeed, when one goes further west from where I am in Saskatchewan, and in Alberta in particular, worker shortages are of great concern to employers and governments.

We know that some employers are hiring temporary foreign workers while Canadians with the same skills in the same community or region are claiming EI benefits. For example, in January, 350 people in Alberta who cited significant experience as food counter attendants had claimed for EI benefits. At the same time, employers in the province were approved to hire more than 1,200 foreign workers for the same jobs. In Ontario, over 2,200 general farm workers submitted EI claims while employers received approval to hire over 1,500 foreign nationals for the same occupation.

We believe Canadians should always have the first opportunity to fill jobs in their local communities. How will we ensure that Canadians are given the first crack? By linking EI and the temporary foreign worker program we will be alerting Canadians to these job opportunities through the job alert system. We are also increasing the frequency with which we are sending out job alerts to Canadians on EI. Before, it was three job alerts every two weeks. Now it will be two job alerts every day. As we face unprecedented skills shortages across the country, it will be critical that we work to help Canadians find available jobs and keep them.

EI is an important program here in Canada and will continue to be. These improvements introduce much needed common sense efforts to help Canadians get back to work faster.

Let me be clear. These changes are not about forcing people to accept work outside their own area or to take jobs for which they are not suited. For example, we will not be asking those with manufacturing experience in Ontario to move to Alberta to work in food services. We will not be asking administrative professionals in British Columbia to move to Ontario to work on farms, although I must say, as a farm owner, working on farms is very often a rewarding and pleasant occupation. What we are doing is connecting Canadians with local jobs that require a similar skill set. The suite of changes we announced in the economic action plan 2012 will support Canadians in their return to work.

Beginning in 2005, under the Liberals, the previous version of the working while on claim pilot tested to see if allowing claimants to earn more while receiving EI benefits would encourage people to accept all available work. Under the previous pilot project, EI recipients who had part-time or occasional work had their benefits reduced dollar for dollar once they earned $75 or 40% of their weekly benefit amount, whichever was greater. To put it another way, once they hit this cap their wages were clawed back 100% from their benefits. This discouraged many of them from accepting available work beyond the 40% threshold. Why would Canadians accept further work if they were not going to be paid for it? This often meant that after one day of work while on claim, working additional hours did not pay at all.

We need to encourage Canadians to work, not discourage them. We know that the previous pilot did discourage people from accepting more work because of the cap that existed on how much they could earn, so we changed that and removed the cap. We are building on what we learned from that pilot and are making further improvements to work incentives through this more moderate clawback rate over a greater range of earnings. I would remind members that the purpose of a pilot is to do a test. Under this new pilot, EI claimants can keep more of what they earn.

The choice is clear. There are two paths being proposed here today. There is our low-tax plan for jobs and growth, which is clearly working, and then there is the option put forward by the NDP, a return to the failed policies of Pierre Trudeau, with high taxes and out of control spending. I think it would be wise for members to stand up for Canada and support our economic action plan.

The motion is factually incorrect. It fails to take into account all the changes we are making to EI to ensure Canadians are always better off working than not. It is contrary to our economic action plan, which is delivering. For these reasons, the government will be voting against the motion.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just as a matter of clarity, the only thing I have contempt for is the ignorance exposed by the question that draws an analogy between labour markets and working life in rural Canada and that in the city of Toronto. I also have contempt for the malice that underlies this program.

Perhaps the member could tell us how these revisions to the working while on claim program benefit people in urban Canada.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, it is our firm belief that working is better than not working. As I pointed out in my remarks, there are 250,000 jobs that are going unfilled right across the country. These jobs are in rural, suburban and urban areas. We are encouraging people to work and acquire the dignity of work.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I just cannot understand what the member is talking about when he says that people want to work. Of course, people want to work. If someone is working on a potato farm one day a week for five months of the year packing potatoes, that is the only work that person has in that rural community.

The member says that he is a promoter of natural resources. However, people in these communities only have one day of work a week. I do not know how he thinks that these people will find jobs for the other four days because those jobs are not in these rural areas. For a part-time snowplow operator, if there is only one snowstorm a week, what are they going to do the other four days?

The work is not there. If the work was there these people would be working.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that under this program the majority of people who work while they are on claim will benefit and will be better off.

However, it is clear that opposition members do not want anyone to benefit from working while on claim. In fact, they voted against significant funding of $74 million for the working while on claim pilot project. Indeed, the opposition voted against countless initiatives we have put in place to help Canadians get back to work.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to my colleague's speech, I forgot for several minutes that we were still debating the opposition motion. In fact, how can he talk about creating jobs or about taxes, when right now we are debating reforms to employment insurance? I did not hear him mention the real topic of today's debate once. He did not talk about how the government can propose reforms that will take away income from so many people.

I would like to give him an opportunity to correct some things he said and to get back to the topic of debate today. My colleague might like to correct what he said and explain who, exactly, will see their income go down, because there will be people. I would like to allow him to correct what he said.