Debates of Oct. 1st, 2012

Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, I have always enjoyed working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

When this change was made, and I am sure the member will be quick to remind everyone of what I said about it at the time, I thought it was a good change. I said that the government was doing the right thing because it had indicated that it was going to increase the amount that people would be allowed to earn from 40% to 50%. It made sense to me. I thought it would just increase the incentive to go back and take work. However, I guess what I should have known, and maybe my colleague was somewhat wiser on this, is that the devil is always in the details. At that time, there was no mention of the dropping of the allowable earnings component of this particular program.

Would my colleague not agree that it was the dropping of allowable earnings that has really had a huge impact on the low income earners and the poorest of the poor? We are trying to fix something here today. Hopefully, that is what we can accomplish with this motion. Would she therefore agree with me that if we could get back to looking at the allowable earnings portion, it would go a far ways in helping people?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. If we looked at that portion of the new changes under the new working while on claim provisions, we could certainly start to restore some of the balance. What has gone missing in the government's approach to this program is that, while it has indeed helped those who earn the most, it has completely abdicated any responsibility to those who are at the lower income earning scale. That is absolutely shameful. If we are going to fix EI, by all means let us do it in such a way as to help the most vulnerable, who need help the most.

Like the member opposite, I would say the devil always is in the details with the government. We certainly did not anticipate a 75% cut in the budget to working while on claim when the minister announced she had good news for unemployed Canadians. If the government were serious and wanted to improve and assist those on EI currently, it would do its damnest to fix the program now.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I fully support the opposition day motion put forward by the New Democratic Party. I wonder if, when addressing the mistakes that are being made to the employment insurance program, we could not just reach back to the spring and include the egregious changes that were made in Bill C-38 that will make it increasingly difficult for Canadians who are dependent on seasonal industries, whether fishing, tourism or forestry, to be able to continue in those industries? It is a real threat to their employers as well.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the leader of the Green Party. The changes that were made in Bill C-38 to the provisions impacting those who are seasonally employed are absolutely outrageous.

The reason we focused on this particular part of the EI system for today's motion is that, one, it is a stand-alone discrete item and, two, we in the NDP kind of want to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps she did not understand her own program. We want to give her the opportunity, in this one very specific way, to say, “You know what? You're right; there is a mistake in the program design. I recognize it now and I'm prepared to fix it”. That is why we cast the motion as narrowly as we did.

The member is absolutely right. We could spend the entire rest of this Parliament talking about things that need to be fixed with Canada's employment insurance system.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed, as I always do, the speech from the member for Hamilton Mountain. She is a very passionate advocate for ordinary Canadian families.

She pointed out that this is nothing less than a punch in the gut to seasonal workers and families that are just trying to get by, to make sure they have food on the table and to pay for their kids' education. There is a whole bunch of consequences to ordinary families that stem from this very mean-spirited action by the government.

I would like the member for Hamilton Mountain to comment on what this means for whole communities. Families are getting this punch in the gut from Conservatives. What does that mean for small businesses in the communities that are impacted by it? What does it mean in terms of economic development? To what extent does this lead to a domino impact that is going to hit whole regions of the country? Could she comment on that please?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a terrific question, because all too often we focus on the forest instead of the trees in this House. He is absolutely right. The changes that were before us have a profoundly negative impact, not just on the individual families but on communities as a whole. That, of course, includes small business.

When we were debating here in the House how we would deal with the incredible economic downturn in 2008-2009, economists were saying to us that one of the tools at our disposal is to strengthen employment insurance, because if people have more money in their pockets they will spend it in their own local communities. They will spend it in the mom and pop stores in their communities. They are not going to put that money into some savings account. There is no dead money in the homes of people on EI. That money would go to support communities. That is one of the reasons why EI is so important, not just to Canadian families, but indeed to the whole communities in which they live.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

I am pleased to speak about the important changes we are making to the employment insurance program and how these changes would ensure that Canadians are better off working than not.

Today's motion is based on faulty assumptions and is simply wrong. It represents yet another attempt by the NDP to roll back a measure that would help improve our economy. As a result, the government will be voting against the motion.

As I have said many times before in this place, we believe Canadians are better off working than not, because Canadians who have a job are able to provide for their families.

This is a pilot project to encourage EI claimants to pursue and accept all opportunities to work. We are always working to ensure our programs fulfill our goals.

This pilot project cannot, however, be focused on in isolation. In economic action plan 2012, we announced several changes to the EI program that will improve incentives to work, allow EI claimants to accept all available work, and ultimately connect them to jobs more effectively, to ensure and enable them to return to work more quickly.

I can assure all hon. members in this place that, under this new program, the majority of people who work while they are on claim will benefit and will be better off. However, I can also assure the House that when the NDP's reckless $21 billion carbon tax comes into effect it will have a huge impact on low-income families and leave them worse off.

As someone who has lived for several years in Atlantic Canada, I know from personal experience the detrimental impact a $21 billion carbon tax would have on Atlantic Canadians, let alone those individuals who live in my riding of Simcoe—Grey in rural Ontario. This tax would not only increase the cost of everyday essentials such as groceries and clothes; it would significantly raise the cost of home heating oil and gasoline. Sadly, this tax would punish rural Canadians, like those in my riding of Simcoe—Grey, far worse than those in urban Canada. With tens of thousands of good paying jobs relying on the continued development of Hibernia and other offshore oil fields in Atlantic Canada, or the thousands of energy-related jobs at Irving Oil, Atlantic Canadians would be particularly hard hit by this carbon tax.

I find it disingenuous of the NDP to be talking about supporting low-income Canadians when its policies are detrimental and would hurt so many Canadian families.

Our top priority is job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

Canada's economic performance has been strong and continues to be strong in 2012. Since July 2009, more than 770,000 new jobs have been created, resulting in the strongest employment growth by far in the G7.

We know there are jobs available across the country. According to Statistics Canada, in June there were 263,000 job vacancies across Canada that went unfilled.

We believe that Canada's EI program must encourage and not discourage unemployed Canadians from filling these jobs.

We want to connect Canadians with jobs to help them return to work quickly.

One way we will do this is by making it easier for Canadians who are out of work to identify new opportunities in their communities. We will do this through increased job alerts to inform EI recipients of local opportunities.

We are also linking the temporary foreign worker program to the EI program to ensure Canadians are always available and always have the first chance to fill local jobs before employers are allowed to bring in temporary foreign workers.

We also introduced a new national best variable weeks program, which would use the local unemployment rate to determine the number of best weeks a claimant can select to calculate his or her average salary. The higher the unemployment rate, the fewer weeks claimants can use to set their average salary. This would ensure that seasonal workers with few alternatives in the off-season are not punished for accepting partial weeks of employment or lower paying work when it comes to calculating their EI benefits.

Another change we are making to employment insurance is the working while on claim pilot project.

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 work beyond the 40% threshold.

We are working on what we have learned from that pilot and are making further improvements to work incentives through this more moderate clawback rate over a greater range of earnings. Under the new pilot project, EI claimants can keep more of what they earn, as benefits are only reduced by 50% of total earnings from working.

There are some members of the opposition who have retracted their support for this pilot project, claiming that they misunderstood exactly what the pilot project was going to do.

I will quote the economic action plan 2012, from page 147:

This new pilot project will cut the current clawback rate in half and apply it to all earnings which are made while on claim.

Knowing that the previous clawback was 100% and that this reduced clawback was going to be applied to all earnings, we were clear from the beginning that this new pilot would apply a 50% clawback from the first dollar earned. I will provide an example of how this works, for the members across the aisle.

Theresa is currently making $264 a week on EI. She finds work for three days a week at $12 an hour, which is slightly above the minimum wage of $10.14 in Nova Scotia. Under the previous pilot, Theresa would have kept $106 of what she made. Now, she will be able to keep $144, which is $38 more per week in her pocket.

This new pilot project is making sure that more people who work while on claim will be able to receive more of the money they earn without an artificial cap getting in the way. We recognize that Canadians want to get back to work.

We know that people who remain active in the labour market are more likely to find a permanent job quicker.

We know that people who remain active in the labour market are more likely to find permanent jobs quicker. Having a part-time job allows people to keep and nurture networks with employers and others who can help them find more permanent full-time employment. It allows people to keep their work skills sharp and develop new skills.

These changes are about empowering unemployed workers, helping them get back into the workforce, and focusing resources where they are needed most.

Our government is committed to making targeted common-sense changes that encourage Canadians to stay active in the marketplace and remove disincentives to work. As we face unprecedented labour and skill shortages, it is important that we ensure EI is working effectively. The most recent change made it possible for EI recipients to make more money while working than they would on EI alone. It is a good example of how we are trying to make things better.

Let me be precise. This is a pilot project and not a permanent measure. We will continue to work so it will always be of advantage for Canadian workers. After all, helping Canadians get back to work is better for them, their families and their communities.

The motion is flawed and misleading, and that is why we, as a government, will be voting against this motion. We urge all hon. members to support our government in doing so and vote against this motion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that successive federal governments have abused the EI system to such an extent that the NDP felt compelled to put forward an opposition day motion today to try to restore some semblance of order to at least some aspects of the EI fund.

When the Liberals were in power, they used the EI fund like some cash cow. There was $58 billion worth of excess revenue put in. They changed the rules so that nobody qualified anymore. Employers and employees dutifully paid into an insurance program that ceased to be an insurance program. It became another payroll tax that the government used to give tax breaks to its friends and to squander it on all kinds of purposes, anything but income maintenance. That was an outrage and had to stop.

I would ask the member to defend the Conservatives' inaction to correct what the Liberals have done. In fact, there are even fewer people eligible for EI now and less benefits.

Is this some kind of tough love, social-engineering program on the Conservatives' part to try to use the EI system to starve people into accepting jobs that are not suitable for them or that force them into moving across the country when temporary workers are needed right where they live?

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

Mr. Speaker, this government has a track record of job creation. We have created 770,000 new jobs since the downturn in the recession in July 2009. We have put in place a number of initiatives in order to allow individuals who are unemployed to have employment. Those initiatives include Helmets to Hardhats, a targeted initiative for older workers, and a youth employment strategy. In fact, $300 million topped up another $50 million over two years in this year's budget in order to allow those individuals who may not be connected to employment to have an opportunity for a job and improve the quality of life for their families. Individuals in my riding of Simcoe—Grey, whether in Collingwood, Thornbury, Alliston or Stayner, all embrace these changes because they see opportunities for themselves, their children and their families.

This government is about being focused on ensuring we are creating jobs and economic growth. I encourage the opposition members to please get on board. We want as many Canadians as possible to have a job.

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

Mr. Speaker, sometimes questions are asked in this House for which the answer can be spoken around. I will ask a question for which there is an answer. The question is drawn from the terrible job the minister has done handling these files. She is just two feet in front of NFL replacement officials with the bungling of these files. She said twice last week that the maximum amount people could earn under the old program was $75. That is the minimum they can earn. They can earn 40% of their EI benefits.

If somebody has a calculator over there, he or she could help out the parliamentary secretary. If people are drawing the maximum benefit of $485 a week, they are allowed to earn 40% of that. On my calculator, it reads $193. They are allowed to earn $193 before there is any clawback at all. Would the parliamentary secretary confirm whether that is right? It is not $75 maximum. People can make up to $193 if they are on maximum benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, I greatly enjoy my colleague's presence on the human resources committee.

To be frank, this is about ensuring that the employment insurance program is working better for Canadians. It is about ensuring we better connect Canadians to available jobs. We are putting in place a number of changes. What will those changes do? They will ensure that individuals receive job alerts on a regular basis. We introduced the national best weeks program. Now, instead of a certain subset of regions in the country benefiting from a great program, the entire country will benefit from that great national program through EI. We put in place a new small business EI tax credit so we can encourage small businesses to increase the number of individuals they are employing.

As I mentioned in my speech, taken together, the changes to the employment insurance program will better connect Canadians to jobs, which is what we need.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by indicating that the government will not be supporting this motion today. We believe Canadians are always better off working than not. This pilot project increases incentives for claimants to accept all available work while on employment insurance. I can assure hon. members that, under this new program, the majority of people who work while they are on claim will benefit and will be better off.

This is a pilot project to encourage EI claimants to pursue and accept all opportunities to work. We are always working to ensure our programs fulfill our goals.

However, I find it passing strange that the NDP brings forward a motion concerning the well-being of low-income Canadians. As we debated at length last Tuesday, poverty in Canada is at historic lows under our government. In 2010, three million Canadians, or only 9% of Canada's population, lived in poverty. While this number is still too high, we are continuing to act to reduce it. This number represents the lowest percentage in Canada's history. To put it in context, this is 1.3 million Canadians who, under our Conservative government, were lifted out of poverty. Whether it is adults, children or seniors poverty, Canadians have never been better off than under our strong, stable, national Conservative government.

However, I can assure this House that a $21 billion job-killing carbon tax would not help Canada's low income families. In fact, given the reliance on home heating oil as a source of warmth through the winter months, the NDP's proposed $21 billion tax grab would l disproportionately hurt Atlantic Canadians. I wonder what the NDP would say to employees of Irving or the many families who rely on the continued development of the Hibernia oil field when they hear their jobs are on the line because of the NDP's risky tax policy. The NDP talks about supporting working families but its policies threaten the good paying jobs that they rely on.

Our government is introducing changes to the employment insurance program to ensure that it is fair, flexible and responsive to local labour market conditions.

Canadians gave us a strong majority mandate in the last election because of the strong economic record of our Conservative government. They know that a healthy economy is the prerequisite for a high quality of life. Simply put, Canadians trust the Prime Minister's low tax plan for jobs and economic growth over the risky schemes of the opposition.

Thanks to the strong leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, Canada has created over 770,000 new jobs since the depth of the recession. Over 90% of these jobs are full-time positions. In fact, Canada has over 350,000 more jobs today than at any highest time pre-recession.

It is an inconvenient truth for the opposition parties that right now there are more Canadians working than at any previous point in our history. Unlike other G7 countries, we are actually facing labour and skills shortages in many regions and industries. This has been caused by both our aging population as well as continued economic growth.

The effects are already being felt in the labour market and will accentuate labour and skills shortages that are already serious in some sectors. In fact, Statistics Canada revealed that there were 250,000 jobs in our country that remained unfilled this spring. These are not even in top-of-mind locations such as Alberta. In Labrador City, there is such a shortage of workers to work in their new mining projects that restaurants cannot stay open and the municipality cannot find enough people to maintain the roads.

However, many Canadians are not aware of local opportunities to work within their region. We can do better at connecting Canadians with available jobs. This is why, as announced in economic action plan 2012, we are making improvements to the EI program to help Canadians connect, maintain and reconnect with the labour market, improvements that the NDP voted against.

This is what we proposed. Canadians receiving regular EI benefits would now be able to receive comprehensive job postings on a daily basis from multiple sources. This would ensure that they are made aware of jobs available in their local area. In addition, measures are being taken to enhance the connection between EI and the temporary foreign workers program. This link would ensure that Canadians always have the first chance to apply for local jobs before employers are approved to hire temporary foreign workers.

The new variable best weeks initiative will use the local unemployment rate to determine the number of best weeks used to set the average salary for calculating EI benefits. The higher the unemployment rate, the fewer weeks used to determine this average. This means that working more partial weeks or more jobs at a lower wage will have less of an impact on EI benefits for seasonal workers.

On the topic of today's motion, as of August 5, 2012, the new working while on claim pilot project came into effect. This new pilot project removes the cap on earnings from EI claimants so that Canadians who accept more work can now earn more while on employment insurance. I will explain this measure a little more.

Under the new pilot project, people receiving EI benefits will have their benefits reduced by 50% of their earnings from the first dollar earned. The new pilot project aims to encourage claimants to increase their work efforts while on claim since this has been proven to be one of the better ways to move toward permanent employment.

It has been found in study after study that people can find permanent jobs more rapidly if they continue to be active in the labour market by looking for work or by working even part time or casually. The working while on claim pilot project promotes workforce attachment by encouraging claimants to accept available work while receiving EI benefits and earning some additional income while on claim. This applies to those who receive regular, fishing, parental or compassionate care benefits.

I would remind members that this is a pilot project. This is not a permanent change but an opportunity to test whether we can encourage unemployed Canadians to work more while on claim.

The employment insurance program must evolve to the needs of Canadians. It must be efficient, flexible and fair for all. However, it must also ensure that it helps Canadians find work more quickly as the economy continues to recover. This is not only an objective we have set for ourselves but a commitment we have made to the Canadian people.

The changes to the working while on claim pilot project cannot be focused on in isolation as it does not take into consideration the many other changes that we made to the EI program this year. This package of EI measures is meant to connect Canadians with local jobs and to return them to work more quickly. Canadians are always better off working than not. Sadly, the NDP has voted against countless initiatives we have put in place to help get Canadians back to work. Unfortunately, the NDP continues to be interested in playing politics instead of supporting our economic action plan, a plan that has reduced poverty to a historic low while increasing the number of Canadians working to a historic high.

Instead of proposing a risky carbon tax that would raise the cost of everything for low-income families and threaten the jobs that so many middle-class families rely on, I ask the NDP to support measures that will actually help Canadian families and vote against this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his statement, although it was chock full of propaganda, for lack of a better way of putting it. I would like to go back to the mention he made of seasonal workers.

How can he justify the effect on seasonal workers that these changes would cause? It is easy to say that seasonal workers can go back to work during the off season but we need to look at the employers as well. Who will hire people who are only available for a few months before they go back to their trade, be it fishing, mining or whatever seasonal trade? How do we encourage employers to hire people who are only available for certain months? How do people who know nothing but fishing, for example, work in a completely different milieu when they are not trained to do so? How do the EI changes address those things?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when people go on employment insurance, there are incentives in the new program for them to go and find work, if it is available in the region, and many people do. Many people are not aware of the fact that there is work there. If there is no work, this program does not change. The benefits that are now proposed by the program are still there for those who will be out of work. Therefore, I do not fully understand why there would be a concern.

The program has incentives for Canadians to look for work, find work and earn money, while they are on EI benefits.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville. We debated this issue once last week and still the members from the government side still do not understand the system, Nor do they understand how serious the pilot project affects those while working on claim. The member for Mississauga East—Cooksville is absolutely incorrect when he says that they can now earn more while working on claim. In most of the cases that is not the case.

I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development whispering in his ear, but she does not know the facts either.

In order to lay out the facts, I would ask unanimous consent again to table the Library of Parliament paper that explains that to them so they understand it and we can fix the problem in the House, which is an easy fix.

For heaven's sake, their colleagues in the Senate agreed to allow it to be tabled. They are not scared of the facts. Why are the members of the government side in the House of Commons so scared of the facts so they can see them and fix the problem.

Therefore, I ask for unanimous consent to table that report.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Malpeque have the unanimous consent of the House to table the documents?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really hear a question from the hon. member. I will give an example from the riding I am proud to represent, Mississauga East—Cooksville.

At this moment, employers are looking for workers, paying $16.00 an hour to start for jobs that do not require any real skills. Believe it or not, there are no takers. They are having a hard time finding workers. There is work there.

The notion that somehow people are better off staying on employment insurance than working is really very bizarre.

I will mention one more thing. There are other initiatives that we have put forward: youth employment strategy; EI hiring credit; apprenticeship incentive grant; targeted initiative for older workers; tool tax credits; pan-Canadian framework for foreign credential recognition; and the foreign credential recognition market loans program. The opposition voted against all these initiatives. Why?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join in the debate today.

I am a little disappointed with the government's start on the debate. I would hope that we would use this day in the House to help a real situation for many Canadians who find themselves with fewer dollars coming into their household as a result of the changes that have been made in EI.

On a cautionary note, this is only the beginning. Some industries, like the fishery, have wound down. Agricultural industries and the people in those seasonal industries are still busy. Some tourism operators are just winding down. When they look for some part-time workers for fall events or to grade harvests, whatever it might be, they will find a similar situation.

We are closer to the beginning of the problem than we are to the end. Let us hope that we can focus, as members of Parliament today, on trying to help all Canadians, especially this group of Canadians, who are being placed in harm's way by losing that amount of money from their weekly pay packets.

I am not really encouraged by the comments from the two government members who spoke so far on the issue and who said that Canadians were always better off working. Yes, Canadians are always better off working. Canadians are better off making a higher wage than a lower wage. Canadians are better off being healthy than not being healthy. Just because they are better off being healthy, we do not close off health services and shut down hospitals. If the Conservatives are stating that Canadians are better off working, they are implying that Canadians who receive EI benefits do so because they are lazy.

I hear from the Conservatives across the way that is not it. Let us deal with the motion and let us fix the problems today, because people are being hurt. Of course people are better off when they are working, but this is when they have no work or they are only able to get small amounts of work.

When the Conservatives made this first change, to much fanfare, there were a number of different aspects that came out in the omnibus bill and about five impacted EI. Two specifically were pilot projects. One was best weeks and the second was working while on claim.

I am very happy to say I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauséjour, who will enlighten the House about a couple of other aspects of the concerns we are raising, and I know all members are looking forward to his comments.

The three other aspects that the Conservatives changed were of great concern to me and I spoke against them, but I spoke in favour of these two particular changes. I said that I would commend the government on those. The best weeks, so far we think it actually got that one right.

The Conservatives did not say anything at all about taking away the allowable earnings aspect of working while on claim. They said that they would increase the amount an EI recipient could earn from 40% to 50%, a little more to take away a disincentive, and I thought that was a great idea. However, the devil is absolutely in the details. Those details are hurting low-income earners who are trying to provide for their families and to get by.

The Conservatives took away the allowable earnings. Rather than trying to fix the problem, we have seen a continual regurgitation of talking points by the minister. It has been absolutely dishonest. The minister said twice last week that every dollar recipients made after $75 while working on claim would be clawed back dollar for dollar, and that is not even close to being the truth. She spoke as if $75 was the maximum an EI recipient could earn. Instead, $75 was the minimum they could earn. If they were only earning $100 a week on EI and they made $100 a week on a part-time job, the maximum they could make would be 40%. That would have been $40. However, with the old system, the minimum that recipients could actually keep was $75. They could keep 40%. The minister is trying to make it appear that $75 is the maximum.

The misinformation that the minister has shared over the course of this debate is totally egregious. She had every opportunity to tell us that. When the budget discussions were on, she said nothing about taking away the allowable earnings. She gave a major speech on May 24 and said nothing about it. The pilot project was announced on August 2 and nothing was said about it. She said that recipients would always benefit from working.

What is happening now is the minister has gone from “always” to “the majority” to “most”, and I am sure by Friday it will be that “some” benefit from working.

Even the examples that are cited on the Service Canada website use high-end earnings. One example is that if a part-time worker earns $795 a week, then he or she would benefit. If somebody earns $795, that is about $40,000 a year. In my riding, that is a career.

In the minister's answers the other day she used two examples, both of which started with, “If the claimant worked for three days”. Not everybody can find three days of work. Some can find two, some can find one, some can find four hours for the week. There should not be a disincentive in taking those four hours for the week. However, if people are making $10 an hour and they go for that four hours expecting to make and keep $40 but are only getting $20 and if they need gas there and back, a sandwich and maybe a babysitter, there are a lot of people who would find themselves in a situation where they actually lose money. The motion put forward by the opposition tries to deal with those aspects of the changes so those people are not hurt.

We have talked about the workers, and I will cite some examples shortly. What we see now is employers that are become frustrated when they try to find workers because it is tough to get workers out for that small block of hours because they lose so much. There was an incident this past weekend in one of my fishing communities. A load of herring had come in. People work countless hours during lobster and crab seasons, but during herring season they just have to come out and unload a boat for four or five hours. However, 30 workers were needed to unload the herring and the employer said that he fought and fought and was able to get about 15 or 20 people out. If it costs people money to work, that is a disincentive.

We received an email from a guy who operates a small construction company in Kenora. The folks who work there all year long operating front-end loaders and excavators work as long as they can at the end of the season. Then over the course of the winter they get involved in snow removal. These guys are bidding on contracts, but they do not know if they will have the workers during the winter season. When the snowstorms come, they do not know if they will have the bodies to run the equipment because they know the changes that have been made have created a disincentive.

Therefore, if this debate does anything today, it is that all members of Parliament take it seriously and try to find a way to fix this. I had commended the government on the best weeks aspects. When I did that, it took away the allowable earnings. If it fixes that, I will stand in my place and commend it on doing what is necessary to take away this disincentive that has been created through the changes it made to the working while on claim component.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to discuss the effects of the recent reforms, and the previous ones, on workers, especially seasonal workers. I am referring to the reforms brought in by the Liberal government as well as the current reforms, and their effects on the Maritimes, primarily on seasonal workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is just another brick on that load. There were a number of changes made that will certainly work against people who work in seasonal industries.

These are not seasonal workers. They are people who work in seasonal industries. Many Canadians work in a number of different industries to try to piece together an annual income. Some of the changes the government has made, such as the three categories of EI claimants or the repeat offenders legislation, are absolutely going to hurt and impact seasonal industries. This working while on claim project is just going to further aggravate the hardship of those people who work in seasonal industries.

We hear it all the time. There are municipal elections taking place in Nova Scotia and candidate after candidate is talking about out-migration and how we are losing population in rural communities. Certainly, these changes will do nothing to help their situation and their plight in rural Canada.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that on the weekend, in my riding of Malpeque, this clearly was the issue. People are being seriously hurt. Employers cannot get workers as a result of it actually costing them money to go to work.

The member in his remarks said let us find a way to fix this. There is a simple fix and the House should fix it. All that needs to be done is to go back to the original 40%, so that a claimant can earn 40% while working on claim without any clawback. Then bring in the government's new measures of 50¢ on the dollar over and above that. Everyone would benefit.

Is this the kind of fix the member for Cape Breton—Canso is talking about, and what would it take to implement that fix?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of it. There were two pilot projects and both were showing benefit. My colleague from Malpeque, the Liberal caucus and I have long advocated for them. I have spoken on it on a number of occasions, whenever I can. Those were two pilot programs that worked well and took disincentives out of the system, and they should be adopted.

The government did one, but it had this new idea with working while on claim. It sounded really good going from 40% to 50%, but the 50% kicks in on dollar one. The 50% kicks in on the first dollar a claimant makes rather than 40% being free and clear. They are losing money from the first dollar, so it is a disincentive.

There is a way to fix it. Go back to the original. It was good the way it was. If we want to make it better, we could go from the 40% allowable to the 50% allowable and that would be taking away even more of a disincentive. We did not hear any complaints about the old system as it was at 40%, but if the government wants to go to 50% that would be even better.

We saw with Bill C-38, the omnibus bill, an unwillingness to adapt. There were 800 amendments put forward and none were accepted. I would hope that we can get together in the chamber today and help the people who are being hurt by these changes.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to indicate my enthusiastic support for the motion introduced by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

I would also like to congratulate the Liberal human resources critic, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, for all his work on the employment insurance file.

Ever since the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development made her announcement in August—without ever having discussed it in Parliament—we have heard many times during question period and in debates in the House that the changes she proposed have had the opposite effect to what the government claimed.

Many times over, my colleagues in the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party have shown the government some very specific examples. They have explained how the changes the minister has proposed to the former pilot project, created by the Liberal government in 2003, were going to cause problems and discourage people from accepting additional hours of work or part-time work during the part of the year they receive EI benefits.

As the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso said, when we saw the budget in the spring and the changes described in the working while on claim pilot project, our first reaction was to commend the government. The government talked about improving the changes that had already helped employers a great deal, in my region, in New Brunswick, and across Canada. Those changes had helped workers, both men and women, to accept available work during times when a business is closed down for part of the year, or the workers’ usual employment is not available, or they are on parental leave. We commended the government because at the time, we thought that it was going to increase to 50% the amount that a person could earn without suffering a dollar-for-dollar reduction in EI benefits. In August we found out we were mistaken.

In fact, what the budget said was not entirely truthful. In her announcement, the minister changed the 40% base for calculations. Previously, under the old pilot project, a person was entitled to earn up to 40% of EI benefits without any reduction. The government said it was going to increase that to 50%, but in fact, that 50% of earned income will not be deducted, dollar for dollar, from EI benefits.

As we have seen with many other policies brought in by this government, it is more likely to benefit high income earners and, in a very limited number of cases, people who earn a lot of money during a period in which they are receiving the maximum employment insurance benefit.

In my home province of New Brunswick, like in many rural areas of Canada, people do not have the opportunity to receive the maximum amount of benefits or to work full time and earn $600, $700 or $800 during a week in which they are receiving maximum EI benefits. The examples the government used to claim that it would benefit everyone really relate to people with higher earnings, who receive the maximum EI benefits and the highest incomes from part-time employment.

Here is a very specific example. In my riding, there is a seafood processing plant located in the town of Bouctouche. A woman called my constituency office in Shediac to explain her situation. She was stunned to learn that she was being penalized for agreeing to work half a shift. It was the only work available in Bouctouche and she was penalized as a result of the changes to the EI program.

That woman's entire income so far this year is $7,868. Clearly, she is not a high income earner. She probably earns just a little more than minimum wage. As we all know, employment insurance is 50% of one's weekly earnings. Her weekly income, when she was working, was $562. Since she was getting 55% of that amount, she got $309 in EI every week when she was forced to turn to EI benefits.

This time, she was asked to work six hours and earned $62. Under the former system, as my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso explained, she would have been allowed to earn up to 40% of her benefits—40% of $309—or $123.60. She could earn $123 in wages without causing a reduction in her employment insurance benefits. Unfortunately, under the new system, the $62 she earned by working six hours were reduced to $31 because 50% of the $62 was deducted from her EI. Instead of finishing up the week with $371—her EI benefits plus the $62 she earned—she took in $340. As my college from Malpeque said, the idea of working six hours for $31 does not make sense. These workers are often women, who have to have someone look after their children. They have daycare expenses. The cost of gasoline in my riding and throughout Canada is very high. These people travel 30 to 60 minutes to get to work.

With these changes, the government is discouraging this woman from going to work when the only work available in her area is a six-hour shift per week.

This also puts employers in my region and across Canada at a disadvantage. This does not penalize only those who receive employment insurance benefits. In fact, employers, such as Mills Seafood in Bouctouche, will have a very hard time finding employees when they have work available for a day or a day and a half a week.

It is the same thing in the tourism industry, where, back home, companies operate a few weekends in November and December, to organize Christmas celebrations, for example. In this case, employees will hesitate to go work because they will be punished as a result of the harmful changes made by the current government.

The solution is simple. Instead of punishing a nurse who decides to work eight to 12 hours in a week while she is receiving parental leave benefits, the government should reinstate the old system that encouraged people to work and that helped employers find workers during certain periods of the year when it is often difficult. The changes brought in by the government will have the opposite effect of what they keep claiming. They do not understand the challenges faced by real families and small- and medium-sized businesses across Canada.

We are opposed to these changes. Other proposed changes to employment insurance worry us. We are pleased to vote in favour of this motion, because we believe that the government must do better for Canadian workers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is about how important this issue has been and how the minister has not seemed to recognize its actual impact.

We have seen a number of our colleagues raise individual cases to provide very tangible examples so that the minister would hopefully understand the ramifications of her government's decisions.

Would the member want to comment on why it is important for people to be suggesting changes to the government with examples, particularly as the minister does not seem to understand what she is doing on this particular file?