Debates of Oct. 1st, 2012

Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before question period there were five minutes left for questions and comments for the hon. member for Churchill.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Churchill talked about the effects that the government's policies are having, not just on individuals in Canadian society who find themselves unemployed from time to time—and the government has shown its uncaring glance in their direction—but also on small businesses and industries. Many of them, in northern and rural parts of Canada, rely on seasonal employment. What the government has now proposed under this new draft of employment insurance is making a bad situation worse for those small business owners who need to have some sort of certainty that there is going to be a group of Canadians able and willing to work in their seasonal industries, the ones that do not consistently run 12 months of the year.

I wonder if my friend could talk about the realities for those communities and business owners she represents? I think they may be representative of communities right across Canada. Economies have taken huge hits to some parts of the natural resource sector, as is true in my friend's case in Manitoba, and are now relying on a diversified economy. What will be the effect of what the government is proposing for employment insurance on her and her constituents?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, both of our constituencies and much of northern and rural Canada share a real concern when it comes to the government's targeting of employment insurance. There is an absolute domino effect when people fear they will not be able to access EI while doing seasonal work. Some look at moving away and others look at the provincial welfare system, which is already overloaded.

Let us take the case of first nations, where there are rates of 85% unemployment. In some cases, the only work available is seasonal work. This is not, as I said, make-work. This is about fighting forest fires, fishing and procuring food resources that we need and export. This is tourism that brings people from around the world to enjoy the beauty we have. It is in those sectors that we need jobs.

Let us look at forestry, an area that has suffered greatly. People working in the lumber industry often do seasonal work. We are seeing a government systematically go after sectors of the economy that sustain communities and regions. Earlier in the House we heard a reference to moving on to other parts of the country. The question is what kind of Canada we want to build. Do we want to focus on one resource at the exception of all others? I do not think so. Countries around the world that are comparable to us maintain that diversity is the way to go. We used to be good at that, but under the current government we are getting worse and the price is going to be paid by Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, when referring to the speech by the member for Churchill, talked about the “hits” to the natural resource economy in her constituency. I would point out to the House that Manitoba is under the dead thumb of an NDP government and many of the difficulties in the natural resources industry in her constituency are because of NDP policies, primarily in the mining industry. In fact, Manitoba's mining industry performance is among the worst in the country.

Can she comment on the effect of the dead hand of Manitoba provincial NDP government policies on the dismal performance of the Manitoba mining sector and, hence, the effect on employment in her constituency?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's great gusto in talking about the provincial government in Manitoba, but I would remind him we are in the federal House of Commons discussing federal issues, so maybe we ought to use our energy to discuss them. I would be interested in hearing from his constituents in first nations and rural communities who also depend on seasonal work and will suffer as a result of the changes to employment insurance that his own government is bringing forward. I would like to hear from the people in Dauphin or Swan River or the first nations he represents on how they feel about his government's actions.

Let us talk about wanting to pursue economic development, whether it is mining or forestry. I can safely say that the federal government is nowhere near the table when it comes to working with first nations to work through some major challenges around resource development in our region. They are not there to talk about the commitment necessary in employment and training, the training that so many northerners and people in rural communities need, to be able to grasp these kinds of opportunities that exist in our region.

I caution the member that, before he gets up in the House with great passion, he should redirect that passion to representing, frankly, some of the people he should be representing.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to advise you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

I am pleased to speak today to the motion that has been introduced by the NDP in regard to the employment insurance working while on claim pilot project. It would be nice to get some facts on the record instead of just fearmongering.

While the opposition parties continue to pursue their misguided economic policies, such as a 45-day work year or a $20 billion carbon tax on everything, our government remains firmly focused on jobs, growth and economic prosperity. That is why we are aiming to help Canadians be better off working than not, with our changes to the employment insurance program. In economic action plan 2012, we introduced a number of improvements to the EI system, which I must remind folks is a temporary income support for Canadians who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

The measures we announced ensure that the employment insurance system is better adapted to the needs of Canadians, and is more flexible and fair. These measures also ensure that the system helps Canadians remain active in the labour market and find a job more rapidly.

A new national approach to calculating EI rates will come into effect in April of next year to replace the old “best 14 weeks” pilot project, as it was known. Building on and learning from that pilot project, as we always try to do, the new approach will finally mean that regions with similar employment levels will be treated similarly. That only makes sense.

We are also stepping up our efforts to better connect Canadians with jobs that are available within their range of skills in their local area and to clarify their responsibilities while on EI. In addition, we announced a new working while on claim pilot project, which came into effect on August 5. As I have said all along, this pilot project aims to increase how much Canadians can work and earn while collecting EI. After all, we truly are facing significant skills and labour shortages in every part of this country, even in areas with high unemployment, and we need all of our talent at work.

We need to encourage Canadians to work, not discourage them. We know that the previous pilot project did discourage people from accepting more work because of the low-level cap that was placed on how much they could earn and still protect their EI benefits. Therefore we made efforts to change that, and it has been proven in study after study that people can find a permanent job much more rapidly if they continue to be active in the labour market. That part-time work, I should point out, often leads directly to full-time work for them. Our intention with the working while on claim pilot project is to promote workforce attachment by encouraging people to accept available work while they are on EI. That only makes sense.

I remind hon. colleagues that this pilot project provides the opportunity to test measures designed to encourage unemployed Canadians to work more while on claim. I will explain.

Under the system's previous provisions, employment insurance claimants who found a part-time job or occasional employment saw their benefits reduced by $1 for every dollar earned, once they earned the equivalent of 40% of their benefits or $75. The maximum applied. Everything they earned after that had to be given back to the government.

From a financial standpoint, it was not advantageous to them to accept work that paid more than this threshold.

Essentially, this meant that after one day of work while on claim, working additional hours or days did not pay at all. In fact, in many cases, the worker incurred expenses such as travel for putting in that extra work effort. No wonder then that workers were reluctant to take part-time work when this often led them to being no better off than they were before.

The opposition loves to use examples regarding this project, so let me use one.

Take Tracy, a salesperson who gets laid off and receives $264 in EI benefits per week, which represents 55% of her previous salary. Tracy finds three shifts of work that pay her $12 an hour, around minimum wage, for a total of $288 per week. Under the old rules, Tracy could earn the equivalent of 40% of her weekly EI benefits before having her pay clawed back dollar for dollar. This meant that despite having found a job that could pay $288 a week, Tracy had no incentive to earn more than $106 a week, or 40% of her weekly benefit. Why? Because her EI would be deducted dollar for dollar after that amount. Therefore, her combined income from temporary employment and EI would come to a total of $370. Under the new rules, Tracy gets to keep 50% of every dollar she earns. Using the same example, her combined weekly income would be $408. That is $38 more than under the previous regime.

If they have the choice, Canadians would rather work. As I have said before, statistics show that those who stay connected with the labour market stand a much better chance of finding full-time permanent work than those who do not.

The opposition is against our efforts to help connect Canadians with jobs available in their regions. We know that the best way to fight poverty is to ensure people have jobs. This is why we are proud of the 770,000 net new jobs that have been created since the end of the recession.

Our overall strategy with this pilot, and with all of the measures that we have announced in budget 2012, is to strengthen the EI program as well as the economy. We will always work to ensure that our programs fulfill our goals. The working while on claim pilot makes it possible for Canadians to get more money working than they would if they were to collect EI alone.

We will continue to work to ensure that it is always better for Canadians to work than not.

What we will not do though is allow the NDP to impose a job-killing carbon tax that would ensure that Canadians would have to pay more for their heat, their gas and their food. That will not make them and their families better off.

This pilot though is a perfect example of how we are making things better, better for recipients, better for their families and better for their communities.

This measure encourages Canadians to remain active in the labour market and eliminates factors that deter people from finding a job.

That is why our government will not be supporting this flawed and misleading motion.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is what was said by the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi or MASSE, which knows what it is talking about:

...while this new national pilot project may benefit some claimants, it will put the lowest paid workers at a disadvantage...

And by the way, we do admit that it will be beneficial for some claimants.

...in comparison to the previous measure, which allowed claimants to keep the equivalent of up to 40% of their weekly benefits.

Under this measure, the poorer you are, the poorer you will stay. How can the Conservatives not see this about the system they are proposing?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the old system was that claimants could work and earn up to $75 or 40% of their weekly benefits, whichever was greater.

For most people, that meant that they could work one day a week and then every dollar they earned after that was clawed back dollar for dollar from their EI benefit payment. This discouraged people from working. We want to encourage people to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have asked a true or false question and I have asked a multiple choice question. I am going to go with an either or question now and I would be happy if she answered either or.

The first one would be what measurement she used. Because she has gone from it is going to help all people, to the vast majority, to the majority. One of the members over there said the other day that it would help most people.

However, in order to fix the problem, there has to be some kind of measurement that is referred to. Therefore, to help me understand why this decision was made, what measure did she use to determine who would benefit and who would not?

Then I have another one, and I will give her a choice.

She has used three examples in the House, all stemming from three days of work. Does she have an example if somebody only gets two days—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will have to stop the member there to accommodate more questions and comments.

The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said so many times to the hon. member, our country is short of workers. We have employers that are begging for skills and labour, even in areas of high unemployment.

The old system, the old pilot project, discouraged people from working more than one day a week. That is not helpful. It is not helpful to those employers and it is not helpful to the communities to which those employers are providing services.

Our goal is to ensure that someone who works while on EI is always better off working than not. That is why we have changed the system.

When the hon. member refers to the old program, there are cases, yes, where somebody was better working on day one but they were totally discouraged from working two, three or four days. We know that the employers would be better off if those people were working, because they have the skills. We want to ensure that the workers and their families are better off working those extra few days as well. We know that beyond the financial benefit, those people who work part time are much more likely to find full-time employment, where they will be even better off and so will their families.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister very much for what I think was a very straightforward explanation about what the government has been doing and how a number of these programs work.

There has been a lot of fear-mongering and finger wagging on the other side and not a lot of facts.

I would like to give the minister an opportunity to give us a few more examples of how the working while on claim program works and how it is benefiting those on claim to receive benefits as well as find jobs.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have done a number of things to help people and some of these have been misrepresented.

EI will always be there for individuals who have lost their job through no fault of their own. With the benefit, with the privilege and the right to EI comes a responsibility to look for work within their skills set, within their geographic region, within a reasonable job price range and to accept that work. That is important for them and it is important for employers and communities that we have all the talented work we possibly can.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the government to respond to the motion by the New Democrat Party in respect to the working while on claim pilot project.

This pilot project will allow people receiving employment insurance benefits to keep 50% of what they earn while receiving benefits. We believe this will encourage Canadians to accept more available work while on benefits and will ensure Canadians are better off working than not.

Our government is making improvements to Employment Insurance so it will work better for all Canadians. For too long there have been too many disincentives in the EI system that discourages Canadians who want to work from getting back to work.

The purpose of this EI pilot project is to test an approach and allow the Conservative government to determine whether more Canadians are encouraged to accept available work while receiving benefits.

This is a pilot project to encourage EI claimants to pursue and accept all opportunities to work. We are working to ensure EI fulfill the objectives of the Conservative government.

The intent of the working while on claim pilot project is to help EI claimants stay connected to the labour market, while they are looking for permanent full-time work.

Page 147 of the economic action plan 2012 states, “This new pilot project will cut the current clawback rate in half and apply it to all earnings made while on claim”.

Under a previous pilot project, EI recipients who had part-time or occasional work saw their benefits reduced dollar for dollar once they earned $75 or 40% of their weekly benefit amount, whichever was greater. Once they hit this cap, their wages were clawed back 100% from their benefits. As a result, many workers were not interested in accepting available work beyond the 40% threshold.

Canada cannot afford such disincentives to working. While on EI benefits, Canada needs people working. Canada is already facing labour and skill shortages in many regions and occupations. Overall, the Canadian population is aging. Canada has led the G7 in economic grow and that is creating jobs that need workers.

The shortage of workers is not only in Alberta. In Labrador City, for example, there is such a shortage of workers to fill jobs in new mining projects that restaurants cannot stay open and the municipality cannot find enough people to maintain the roads.

Canadians are pleased with the Conservative government's approach. They see the modifications to working while on claim as an improvement that helps workers transition back into the labour market more smoothly.

We believe this pilot project will motivate people to work more since work will pay at the same rate no matter how much income is received.

We want to encourage Canadians on EI to work because study after study shows that part-time work often leads to full-time work. Having a job to go to, even if it is only for a few hours a week, helps workers maintain their skills and keeps them in touch with developments in their fields. It offers the opportunity to make contacts and to hear about other available jobs.

These changes cannot be considered in isolation. This Conservative government has brought in several changes to EI recently to strength the initiatives to accept all available work.

For example, under the connecting Canadians with available jobs initiative, we are enhancing the content and frequency of job alerts and labour market information bulletins for people on EI. Sadly, the New Democrats and the Liberals voted against this much needed and important initiative.

We are also improving coordination between EI and the temporary foreign worker program so Canadians can learn about job vacancies and be considered for positions before employers hire foreign workers.

While it is clear that this Conservative government's focus is on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, the NDP and its leader are fixated on a job-killing carbon tax that would raise the price of everything for Canadians, including gasoline that they need to get to work. Sadly, the people most affected by this would be lower income Canadians.

This Conservative government has worked hard to reduce taxes for all Canadians. That is why we are proud to say that we have taken over one million Canadians off the tax rolls.

The EI program is designed to be a support on the job market, not an alternative to it. Surely my colleagues on all sides of the House will agree that Canadians would rather be working than not.

Unfortunately in some regions that are heavily reliant on seasonal economies, employment insurance is a much-needed support measure. I want to assure Canadians in those regions that employment insurance benefits will be there for them. We have made changes to the best weeks program to ensure that they are not penalized for working partial weeks in the off-season or if they take a lower paying job just to bring in some extra income.

The Conservative government has found the balance between providing adequate income to the unemployed and encouraging them to get back into the workforce. Pilot projects like working while on claim do just that.

Canadians are always better off working than not. We need to remove the barriers that prevent people from fully participating in the labour market. This Conservative government is committed to making targeted common sense changes that encourage Canadians to stay active in the job market and remove the disincentives to work.

That is why I will not be supporting the opposition motion put forward today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech. In it, she emphasized the importance of working, even if it is only a few hours a week because this allows workers to maintain their skills and remain active in the labour market.

I completely agree with her in that regard. However, the Conservatives' employment insurance reform will penalize workers who work a few hours a week while receiving employment insurance benefits. In fact, four out of 10 employment insurance claimants will be at a disadvantage. Their income will be cut in half.

Is the hon. member aware of this? If so, how can she explain to these workers, who work one or two days a week, that she supports a bill that will cut their income in half?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the opposition member does not realize is that this pilot project specifically addresses that problem. In fact, this government is working hard to connect Canadians with well-paying jobs.

There is a labour shortage across this country and we need a program like this. We need to find out if it works and I believe it will, which is exactly why I am not supporting the motion. We need to assure Canadians that we understand what the problems are with the current system as it is. I believe that this pilot project does exactly that.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's comments she indicated that anyone, even if they only work a couple of hours a week, is much better off. I have gone through all the computations and it does not work out.

Let us take this out of the debate: if someone works, that is good and he or she does not need the help. If they are healthy, they do not need the hospital. This is for people who are trying to feed their families when they are out of work. Under the old system, if they worked a couple of hours, they would benefit. The member said in her statement that under this program even a couple of hours a week would be a benefit.

Does the member actually believe this? Having looked at these programs, the old one and the new one, can she say to the House that people are better off under this program than the old program? It is a simple question.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question, coming from the member for Cape Breton—Canso.

On May 4, he said:

I'm going to give the government kudos...what they're doing with the best 14, and the working while on claim, they were two good provisions within that.

Maybe the member does not remember that he said that or that at one time he thought this was a good pilot project.

It is important to remember that this pilot project enhances the flexibility and fairness of the EI program. I think the member actually knows that.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question.

The minister and various Conservative members have given us a lot of examples of people who are able to find good jobs with good wages. These people will benefit from the new program.

However, I would like my colleague opposite to explain what will happen to someone who manages to earn $75 a week. Under the old system, this person could keep $75 before any money was deducted from his employment insurance benefits. Under the new system, this person will immediately lose 50% of his income. How will the new system help this person?

I would like the member to provide an explanation for this exact example, without reverting to the talking points we have already heard, which have been rehashed over and over in the House.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need facts on this debate and not fear-mongering. When people get to keep more of the money they earn while on EI, then obviously that is an incentive to keep doing that. The opposition should realize that this pilot project is going to work for Canadians and that letting people keep more money in their pockets is what will help, especially with regard to the labour shortage in our country, which we have to address.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time here today with the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

That said, I would like to answer the question myself.

Someone who earns $75 will make less money at the end of the day, that much is certain. I did the math regarding someone who earns $300 a week, and that person would have $30 less per week. So the answer to that question is that that individual earns less money, not more. That is clear. The Conservatives should learn how to count.

I am pleased to rise here today to speak to the NDP motion moved by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, the official opposition EI critic. I would like to thank her on behalf of my constituents in Hochelaga.

My colleagues from La Pointe-de-l'Île and Honoré-Mercier could definitely join me in speaking at length about the current situation in the east end of Montreal Island, where many residents and their families are still suffering from the effects of the last recession and the many plant closures in the manufacturing sector.

I cannot help but think of the impending closure of the Mabe plant in my riding of Hochelaga. Over the next two years, several hundred more high-paying jobs—700 jobs—will disappear. This is in addition to the closure of the Shell refinery in Montreal East, which also employed many skilled and highly paid workers.

It goes without saying that the changes made to EI by the Conservative government in its Trojan Horse bill do nothing to help workers and their families. On the contrary, they continue the work started by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, which was carried on by the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin Liberals.

It is quite interesting to go over some of the history of the misappropriation of the unemployment insurance system, which, ironically, is now called the “employment insurance” system.

In 1990, the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney permanently withdrew from funding employment insurance, clearly showing the government's unwillingness to intervene in problems having to do with unemployment and employment. From then on, workers and employers had to fund the program on their own. Changes to employment insurance also significantly changed the rules of eligibility for benefits.

On March 26, 1993, the Liberal leader, Jean Chrétien, who was the leader of the official opposition in the House of the Commons at the time, wrote the following, and rightly so I might add, in a letter to opponents of the Conservative bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act:

The Liberals are dismayed by these measures. By reducing benefits and further penalizing those who voluntarily leave their jobs, clearly the Conservative government cares very little for the victims of the economic crisis. Instead of attacking the real problem, it is attacking the unemployed.

Nonetheless, hopes raised by these comments and the 1993 election campaign were dashed. When the Liberals came to power, they changed their tune entirely, proclaiming that unemployment insurance created unemployment and that the legislation needed changing in order to deal with those who “stay home drinking beer”. I am quoting what the Prime Minister said in an article published in Le Devoir on April 21, 1993.

The government walked away from its responsibility to create jobs. Unemployment became an individual responsibility. In other words, the unemployed had only themselves to blame.

In 1996, the fatal blow was dealt to the Unemployment Insurance Act. It was abolished and replaced with the Employment Insurance Act, which once again narrowed eligibility criteria and reduced the benefit rate.

To add insult to injury, since the mid-1990s, the Liberal and Conservative governments have been misappropriating tens of billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund in order to balance their budgets, when this fund should be used to compensate the unemployed. First the government hijacked the purpose of the system, then it attacked the fund.

As a result, the fund became unstable and to correct that, employer and employee contributions were increased.

Let us be clear: when premiums go up, when eligibility is restricted, and when the money gets used for purposes other than the intended ones, it looks a lot like a tax.

What are the consequences of all these counter-reforms today?

In July, 508,000 claimants were receiving regular employment insurance benefits, but 1.38 million Canadians were unemployed.

That leaves 870,000 unemployed people without any benefits to make up for their loss of income. That means 57% of unemployed workers are not currently entitled to benefits. This historic record was reached through changes made by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. It is unacceptable.

What are the Conservatives doing to deal with this situation? We cannot truthfully say they are doing nothing, since they really have gone even further in limiting access to the EI system. What are they doing to help workers avoid reliance on the EI system, aside from limiting access to it, of course? Nothing.

The government can brag about creating jobs, but the facts are clear: 300,000 more people are unemployed than before the crash in 2008.

The Conservatives’ 2012 omnibus budget, which they brought down in March, amended dozens of acts having nothing to do with budget implementation, and also amended a number of EI regulations.

For example, the new definition of “suitable employment” means that claimants are obliged to accept employment in another field of work than they worked in previously, and they must accept work quite far from their homes or accept a much lower salary than they were earning before. My colleagues have presented many examples of the unbelievable situations cause by this new interpretation.

And then the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and her parliamentary secretary ask us why we voted against their budget.

All these examples make me a little skeptical of the Conservatives’ good faith when it comes to helping workers. Are they completely out of touch with reality?

As for the working while on claim pilot project, it ought to enable EI claimants to add to their income while receiving EI benefits. Pardon us for doubting the minister’s words when she states, as she has a number of times, that most claimants who work while receiving benefits will be better off because of this pilot project.

Obviously, she has never been able to provide us with the numbers to back up her statements. On the other hand, she always gives numbers related to people who work more or who earn higher wages.

Here are the facts. The recovery formula used in the current 2012-15 program is likely to discourage many claimants from part-time work or low-wage work, because some of them will earn less than under the system that was in effect from 2005 to 2012.

The proof is in the amount of money provided for this program. Here are the numbers: in 2009, $141 million was earmarked for the project; in 2010, this amount was $132 million; and in 2011, it amounted to $130 million.

So when the Conservatives say that the new program is better but only $74 million over two years—or $37 million per year—is allocated in the 2012 budget, we have obvious reasons to be skeptical.

The employment insurance system was designed to help workers and their families in the event that they lost their jobs. What I have talked about today clearly shows that the system's initial purpose has been hijacked. The employment insurance fund must be used to provide benefits to unemployed workers and not to balance a budget or impose an additional tax on workers and employers.

I hope that the government will listen to reason and revisits its policies, which clearly attack unemployed workers more than unemployment and have swollen the ranks of the unemployed to more than 1.4 million, including nearly 900,000 workers who have no access to benefits. Otherwise Canadians will have to wait until October 2015 for the first NDP government to deal with the real problems of our society.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for reminding members present of one important fact that seems to get lost in the debate around employment insurance, and she mentioned it early on in her speech, which is that it is not the government's money.

The EI fund, since 1990, has been comprised exclusively from contributions by employers and employees to provide income maintenance for those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs.

Where does the government even get off, making unilateral and arbitrary changes to eligibility, benefits and clawbacks, changes that it willy-nilly throws around, seemingly without much research and without much impact study. Where does it even have the right to do this without consulting the very people who pay for the fund?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. The government should not have the right to touch that money because, as my colleague was saying, it is not the government's money. Furthermore, there is less and less money in this fund for workers.

In the 19th century, families and religious groups would help people. I think we will have to go back to that because government help for the unemployed is dwindling. The social safety net is eroding, even disappearing. We will have to go back to having large families with lots of children and to helping everyone.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the House that Mathew Wilson, the vice-president of national policy of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, stated:

If fewer Canadians are relying on EI because they have found employment, which is the ultimate goal of the program changes, there will be less of a financial burden on the system.

Our government's top priority is creating jobs and long-term prosperity for Canadians. Why will the opposition not support these initiatives to help the Canadian economy?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I knew that the hon. member would ask me that question. The Conservatives are assuming that everyone can find a full-time job, but that is not true.

I know plenty of people who are working in the museum community or as guides on Parliament Hill, for example. There are plenty of people who cannot get a full-time job because such jobs do not exist in their field.

At the museum where I used to work, there are technical support employees who work only during events, but events are not held 35 hours a week. Events last only a few hours and are held only a few nights a week. These people cannot work full-time.

People who have a part-time job at a convenience store in Hochelaga are not going to go and work in Alberta's oil fields. Not everyone can go from a part-time job to a full-time job. It is not realistic.