Debates of Oct. 1st, 2012

Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the key to economic development, economic growth, job creation and job retention is having a public policy environment in place that creates wealth and jobs.

It is interesting that opposition members voted against all the measures that we have put in place to help Canadian workers. They voted against the youth employment strategy, the EI hiring credit, the apprenticeship incentive grant, the targeted initiative for older workers, tax credits, the pan-Canadian framework for foreign credential recognition and the foreign credential recognition micro loans program. The list goes on and on. It is all about creating wealth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is a man of science. Using some kind of science or measurement, I would think that if one is going to change something for the better then there must have been a time when it was worse.

The stuff about “our party is all about working” is great. Everyone is for working and creating jobs, but when there are no jobs then there has to be a safety net. That is what this debate is about today. When people are sick, there is a hospital. When people are unemployed, there is EI.

What measurement did the Conservatives use? The reference was made several times, for the last two weeks probably, that the vast majority are benefiting. Give us a number; any number at all, pick one. It can be plus or minus ten on either side. I would be comfortable with that.

How many are benefiting, how many are being hurt and what is the measurement?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a pilot project to encourage EI claimants to pursue and accept all opportunities to work. We will always consider refinements to ensure it achieves these goals.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my presentation today by congratulating the member opposite, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

I too represent a rural region. We certainly do not have any iron smelting plants back home. The mines closed a long time ago, but we still have primary industry, such as the fishery. We have fish processing plants. Our colleague across the way said that employment insurance will ensure that those people can continue to work all year long.

I can assure you that if people were to fish all year long back home, the fishing industry would not be around for very long. It would not take very long before the resource was depleted. A seasonal industry cannot magically be converted into a permanent industry that lasts all year. That is certain. There is no mistaking that many regions in Canada depend on seasonal industries.

Employment insurance has always been there to support these industries, and that is not for nothing. It is not because people do not want to work during the winter or because they are not interested in working. The inescapable reality in Canada is that we have a winter season to contend with. In the winter, a number of industries slow down drastically. There is nothing anyone can do about it. The hon. member from the third party told us about a snowplow operator who might remove snow only one day out of four. A person like that cannot make up work.

I should have mentioned that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I am telling you now, because I will be stopping in about 10 minutes.

To come back to the issue of seasonal work, I would add that the nature of the industry in our regions is such that we cannot just magically create an industry that operates year-round. Employment insurance has a very important role to play in our regions. It is wrong to think that people are not interested in going to work. EI allows our industries, our small and medium-sized enterprises to work to their fullest during the summer and to operate effectively during that time. EI allows regions with a seasonal economy to enjoy a smooth-running, profitable economy during the summer months.

I can tell you that, in the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and a number of regions in Canada with seasonal industries, the summer industries—often tourism, as is the case in my area—are profitable not just for small and medium-sized companies, but also for the government, which collects taxes. These industries create employment and wealth and unfortunately require support.

We can do nothing about the fact that tourists do not visit our area in the winter. There is very little in the Gaspé of interest to tourists in the winter. Naturally, if my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette can find a magic solution to make winter profitable, we will listen. However, until we find a solution, all we can do is find a means of keeping workers in the winter. Then, at the start of the tourist season, in the summer, the trained workers who are familiar with our region are available for work and can start right at the beginning. They are trained workers.

If we lose these workers because of reforms to employment insurance, if they are forced to move to other parts of Canada because they do not have the support of employment insurance, we will not be able to train other employees. It is very expensive for small and medium-sized firms. They do not have the money.

If there is no money for employment insurance, we will have to find other programs to support small and medium-sized firms in the regions. Quite frankly, it will cost much more than the employment insurance program.

I would just like to make a small comment. We are told that everyone who wants to work will find a job and that this reform will not impoverish these people. That was mentioned, but I want to mention it again.

In the past three years, the pilot project to support people working while on claim cost $130 million. This year, it is estimated that it will cost $74 million. If this amount is reduced by almost 50%, how can the government say that it will not affect the income of these people?

The people most affected by this reform will be those who make the least amount of money. If we do the math, it is not the people who work three, four or even five days while on EI who will be most affected by the government's proposed pilot project. The people who work only one or two days stand to lose the most with this reform.

In my riding, those who benefited from the pilot project in the past while they were receiving benefits were only working one or two days a week, not four or five. They were filling in at certain processing plants. From time to time, fish arrives and workers are needed for a day or two to process the stock. There is not enough work for the week, just for a day or two. These people will be affected by the reform because they will earn 50% less than they did in the past. Half the money they earn for a day of work will be deducted from their benefits. They will not make as much money as they did in the past. They will have to spend a lot of money to commute and to pay for child care. It is very expensive to work just for one day and it must be cost-effective.

The reform will do exactly the opposite. It will encourage people to refuse the work they are offered. This will have a negative impact on the region's labour force and on small and medium-sized businesses and processing plants. These plants will have difficulty finding workers and will be unable to operate. This will harm the seasonal economy. A certain kind of economy exists in our region in the winter. This will make the situation even more difficult because there will be a shortage of workers.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, who spoke just before me, said that we are not here to force anyone to work in other regions. I would like to quote his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, who made the following comment in the House last Thursday:

EI recipients will now get job postings twice a day for those chosen occupations within their community, as well as postings for jobs in related occupations in other geographic regions. This will enable them to make more informed decisions about how to conduct their job search.

When I read that, I do not think that claimants in seasonal work areas will benefit from the fact that they can stay at home. The government is really offering them an incentive to leave the region.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour said that claimants would be sent job postings for jobs in other regions.

I will give an example of how this translates in my region. A woman in the Magdalen Islands received a written notice indicating that four jobs were available in her region. Her region is defined as extending from Chandler to the town of Gaspé. To get from the Magdalen Islands to either Chandler or Gaspé, it takes a five-hour ferry ride and about 10 hours of driving. I do not understand how this could be profitable for this claimant, or for the small business that would have hired her. Of course there would be absences every now and then if one had to commute 15 hours each way every day. It would take 30 hours of commuting in a 24-hour day. It makes no sense.

With this reform, the definition of one's region is incomprehensible. What does it mean to offer a claimant employment in another region? The region has nothing to do with where one lives. Claimants will feel so harassed with the new system that they might give up on EI altogether.

Will these people have to leave their region? Will they be forced to turn to social assistance? In that case, it will not cost the federal government anything, since that is a provincial program.

My colleague just said that they do not want to take money away from claimants. Frankly, the government should be consulting claimants, because that money belongs to us, to claimants and employers.

In closing, there has been a serious lack of consultation and that is—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development for questions and comments.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by clarifying some of the comments made by the member opposite and some of his colleagues, particularly the member for Hamilton Mountain, which misrepresented me and misled the public based on a specific article. I would like to table that article with respect to my question, so that the House would understand what was actually said and I would no longer be misrepresented by the opposition.

Second, there are a lot of seasonal workers who work in my riding of Simcoe—Grey. Both the employers and employees are delighted with the changes we are making in employment insurance, because there are actually more jobs being made available to them in their local area, as we have specified numerous times. Therefore, I encourage people not to listen to the fabrication of my colleague opposite, who seems to think that people are not being provided with information in their local areas about similar occupations. That is what this is about. The people who want to avail themselves of EI outside of those can continue to do so, and we encourage them to do so.

I ask the member opposite, has he read the new regulations, does he know what they are and can he state those facts?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to the response, was the parliamentary secretary seeking unanimous consent to table a document?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to table this article.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary was seeking unanimous consent to table a document?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would ask for consent. This is an article that was referred to by the member for Hamilton Mountain.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain why I oppose her tabling that document in the House.

Her comments are already recorded in Hansard. Once again, I would point out that I did not make up what I said. I quoted exactly what she said last Thursday in the House of Commons. It is quite clear.

I invite people to consult the adjournment proceedings in last Thursday's Hansard to read what I just quoted. I think what it says is very enlightening: by all accounts, the government wants to empty the regions.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have watched the debate all day today, sometimes from the office and sometimes here, and I am really saddened by the remarks of government members on this issue. My question is to the member who just spoke.

This is a pretty simple motion. It is calling on the government to take steps to fix the working while on claim program immediately. I heard the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette say that the government would be voting against it. This is the House of Commons. This is where members stand up in their own right on an issue. The member for Egmont said she was hearing about problems.

This is an easy solution. There is a lot of cynicism about this place. This is an opportunity, on a simple motion, for the House of Commons to work on fixing a problem. I am not taking anything away from the government. All it has to do is to go to 40%. Let it happen.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for his comments.

Definitely, everyone should be taking part in this debate. It is a crucial program—perhaps even one of the two most important federal programs.

There is a clear lack of attention on the part of the members opposite. It is truly disappointing to see how little they are doing to support Canadians, especially those Canadians who need it most.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine sees the situation very clearly. He comes from a region that is being specifically targeted, as are all the Atlantic provinces.

The government does not understand what is happening in these regions. I toured Peggy's Cove, which is near St. John's. These people are hard-working and proud, as are all people from Newfoundland, Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and New Brunswick. All across Canada, most people would prefer to work and are proud of what they do. I am under the impression that the government is basing its decisions solely on prejudices, clichés and cynicism. To the government, I am sure that the beautiful little village of Peggy's Cove represents an expense, a dock to be maintained, bothersome people. The Conservatives believe that it is not important. However, the fishermen from Peggy's Cove are not asking for the government to help them, they are just asking it to stop—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Unfortunately, the time allocated for the question is over. I give the floor to the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and I truly appreciate his comments.

It is obvious that the members opposite do not understand the people from our regions at all. These people resort to employment insurance not because they do not want to work, but because they are proud of their region, and want to continue living there and contributing to the economy. It is our duty to help them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine on his eloquent speech that highlighted the problems affecting seasonal workers. This is something that is very important in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

The motion on the working while on claim pilot project, which was put forward by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, is very important. I am very proud to support it in this House today. I would also like to take a moment to congratulate the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on her hard work on the employment insurance file and to thank her for moving this motion.

The motion we are debating today highlights some major problems with the Conservative government's new pilot project and calls on the government to take immediate action to correct these flaws that directly affect the most vulnerable employment insurance claimants.

In theory, the objective of the new pilot project created by the Conservatives is to encourage Canadians receiving EI benefits to accept a part-time job while continuing to receive benefits, under certain conditions.

In theory, this program has a very laudable objective of encouraging Canadians to re-enter the labour market, and I cannot oppose the basic principles behind this pilot project.

Many programs targeted at encouraging claimants to take on part-time work have existed in one form or another since 2005. These programs are one way for employment insurance recipients to improve their financial situation and take advantage of opportunities offered to them.

However, the new system proposed by the Conservatives is far from perfect. Under the working while on claim pilot project, claimants who are working part-time will have to give the government 50¢ of every dollar they earn, from the first dollar earned, up to 90% of their weekly insurable earnings. Income over that threshold will be clawed back dollar for dollar.

This new clawback formula is notably different from the formula used before August 4, when the new pilot project came into force. Under the old working while on claim program, claimants with jobs were allowed to keep the greater of $75 or 40% of their weekly employment insurance benefits. Any earnings beyond that were clawed back dollar for dollar.

From day one of this new system, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and her parliamentary secretary have been saying loud and clear that this pilot project will guarantee that every employment insurance claimant will always be better off working because they will be able to keep more of their earnings.

Unfortunately, just a month and a half into the new program, we can see that this is not the case for all EI benefit recipients, contrary to what the minister and her parliamentary secretary say. It is clear that the changes made by the Conservatives disadvantage the most vulnerable workers by reducing the earnings of those who are able to find just one day of work a week, or those who are receiving Canada pension plan benefits while receiving EI benefits.

Workers who earn a low income or receive an old age pension are now seeing this government subtract from their EI benefits the equivalent of half their earnings from the first dollar they earn.

I will give a clear example. Earlier I asked a member from the governing party the question and I did not get an answer. I will explain myself a little more clearly, then perhaps the hon. member will be able to provide further explanations.

For example, if an EI claimant receives $75 in earnings every week from a part-time job, fully half of that amount is subtracted from his employment insurance benefits. Under the old system, that same claimant could have kept his entire weekly salary without losing a penny of his EI benefits.

This is a clear example of a situation where an EI claimant is completely disadvantaged by the new system. If we add all the additional expenses that are related to having a job, from transportation to work to child care expenses, then it is clear that the provisions of the Conservatives' new pilot project will cause major losses of income for workers who have a low-paying job, or who can find only one day of work per week or less.

Under such circumstances, it is almost inconceivable that people will look for a part-time job or a low-paying job because they will be immediately penalized by this government.

Under such circumstances, how can this government continue to state that the living conditions of every individual who accepts work while receiving employment insurance benefits will improve? I just gave a very clear and irrefutable example that demonstrates that such is not the case.

Throughout the day, we have heard many of my colleagues in the opposition parties speak about hundreds of Canadians whose employment insurance benefits have been reduced and who are being punished by this government because they managed to find a part-time job to try to improve their situation. That is unacceptable.

This government must take action to correct the blatant errors that were made in the development of this new pilot project, errors that are once again punishing the most vulnerable Canadians.

For example, I am thinking of seasonal workers across the country who will be among the first to pay the price of the changes being imposed by the Conservatives. My riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier will no doubt be one of those hit hard by the provisions of the new pilot project.

In my riding, the agricultural, tourism and forestry industries are particularly important to the local economy and, as my colleagues know, the survival of these industries depends in large part on seasonal workers.

During the off-season, many seasonal workers are able to find work for one or two days a week. These jobs often do not pay well, but they are key to the operation and survival of the companies that offer them.

Unfortunately, under the Conservatives' new system, the income of employment insurance claimants in my riding will be cut in half if they decide to accept one of these jobs. And it is not only employment insurance claimants in my riding who will be penalized by the new pilot project; businesses in my riding will also be put at a major disadvantage.

I hope that, now that I have said the word “businesses”, the Conservatives will listen a little more closely to what I have to say. The Conservatives are obsessed with the economy, but they ignore the human beings who support it.

Already, many employers in my riding have contacted me to tell me about the difficulty they are having finding people who are prepared to work for their company on a piecework basis—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. There is a lot of noise in the House. A number of members are speaking too loudly.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, many employers in my riding have contacted me to say that they have not been able to find enough workers to fill positions—for one or two days a week—to keep their businesses running, because workers do not want 50% of their earnings to be clawed back. They do not want to end up with less money than what they would have earned with employment insurance alone.

How can the Conservatives think that these poorly thought-out changes to the pilot project will not have a negative impact on the economy in my region? That is unbelievable.

I am not saying that all employment insurance claimants will be negatively affected by the provisions of the new pilot project. If a claimant is fortunate enough to find a job that pays at least half of his previous income, he can keep a larger part of his earnings. That is true.

However, opportunities like that do not exist in every region. Too many Canadians will see their earnings disappear as a result of the decisions the Conservatives made without consulting employment insurance claimants and employers. These are the two groups that contribute to employment insurance. This is not a government benefit. It is not up to the government to determine what to do with the money without consulting the public. This is an absolutely unacceptable way of doing things.

Instead of always repeating the same old lines, the minister should read the Employment Insurance Commission's report on this pilot project. The report shows that nearly four in 10 Canadians will be penalized by this new program. That is almost half. So when the Conservatives say that a vast majority of Canadians will benefit, I say that I would like to see the numbers. We have asked for them, but I have yet to see anything because they simply do not exist.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and the recorded division is deemed to have been requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 2, 2012, at the end of Government Orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

National Defence

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it will be no great surprise to my colleagues that this is a follow-up question to the Prime Minister's response to a question I put in question period about the F-35.

This program literally has its wheels falling off. The gist of the question was why the Prime Minister ran an election in 2011 when he knew full well what the costs of the F-35 program would be, when he knew that the numbers that were presented to the cabinet were very similar to what the PBO had arrived at and what the Auditor General subsequently arrived at.

The Prime Minister blew me off and gave his standard answer, “I disagree with the premise of the question”, but the fact remains that Canadians were told in the 2011 election that the F-35 would be in the order of about $15 billion, knowing full well that it would be between $25 billion and $30 billion.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you had the opportunity this weekend to see the Fifth Estate program, which was an hour long and was an exposé of all of the problems with this file. There are three areas of potential problems. There is the costing, with which we have been led on a merry chase. There is the requirements of our replacement fighter for the F-18. Then there are the industrial benefits. I will leave the industrial benefits aside for the time being because we can only cover so many problems in a four minute period.

On the actual statement of requirements, there was a startling revelation in the Fifth Estate program, which was also in the W-5 program, which said that in 2006, when the statement of requirements was presented to the minister of the day, there were some serious and consequential significant information missing, particularly with respect to the other competition. The statement of requirements was clearly weighted toward the F-35 and away from the others, in part because none of that material actually came to the fore.

It was kind of curious and interesting to listen to experts actually talk about this program. One particular expert, who was a principal designer of the F-16, said that this plane was a turkey. He said, very simply, that it had a limited range, it carried a payload and it was unable to manoeuvre in any kind of a dogfight.

In consequence, we have sold ourselves out to Stealth, and nobody has actually answered the question as to why Canada needs Stealth. I can see possibly why the Americans need Stealth or even the British, but why does Canada need Stealth? What we have married ourselves to at this point is an airplane that is slow, has limited range, limited payload and a whole bunch of nations have said that they should take a look at this again.

We in the Liberal Party have been saying forever that we need an open, fair and transparent competition.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, let me update the member on our program to replace the CF-18s.

Our government is keeping its promises with the creation of a National Fighter Procurement Secretariat. The National Fighter Procurement Secretariat is in place to ensure transparency and due diligence in the decision to replace our CF-18s. The objectives of the NFPS are to ensure that the Royal Canadian Air Force acquires the fighter aircraft it needs to complete the missions asked of them by the government.

No money has been spent on the purchase of new fighter aircraft and no money will be spent until the secretariat independently verifies the costs necessary to replace our aging fleet of CF-18s. It has taken time to assemble the right people for the secretariat, the right outside expertise, including a former auditor general of Canada who is joining the team on the secretariat, as well as all of the relevant departments.

We accept the recommendation in this spring's Auditor General's report. We accept the conclusions. That is why we are going beyond that by not only agreeing to put forward full life cycle costs but also by establishing a seven-point plan, which this secretariat will oversee.

The Auditor General has said of our seven-point plan that our government is taking “steps in the right direction”. The National Fighter Procurement Secretariat is keeping the Auditor General informed of the progress being made on completing our government's seven-point plan.

Let me emphasize the role of this secretariat.

The National Fighter Procurement Secretariat established within Public Works and Government Services Canada is tasked with coordinating the implementation of the government's seven-point plan. There will be key roles with respect to transparency, impartiality and reports to Parliament and to the public. The secretariat's initial overall costs will be available this fall. The secretariat will provide the due diligence that Canada deserves and the government is responsible for delivering in such cases.

As my colleague is fully aware, the whole question of costs is absolutely the central issue in determining what aircraft will replace the CF-18. The process of estimating the total costs of the entire life cycle of the aircraft that will replace the CF-18 needs to be carried out very carefully and very thoroughly.

We made a promise to Canadians in the House that we would independently verify all costs. We will report back once the secretariat's advice and expertise has completed this task.