Debates of Dec. 4th, 2012

(The House divided on Motion No. 613, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #565

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 613 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 614 to 663 defeated.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The next question is on Motion No. 664. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 665.

(The House divided on Motion No. 664, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #566

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 664 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 665 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 666.

(The House divided on Motion No. 666, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #567

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 666 defeated.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #568

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-10, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

I wish to inform the House that because of the delay there will be no private members' business hour today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would ask all members who wish to continue their conversations to please leave the House.

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

Employment Insurance

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in September, when we returned from the summer break, Canadians were just beginning to discover the full scope of the Conservatives' famous mammoth budget bill.

The employment insurance counter-reforms imposed by the government would have all manner of negative consequences for our economy, but also for our workers and the unemployed.

Last May, because of pressure from the opposition, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was forced to clarify for Canadians the concepts of suitable employment and reasonable job search. We then discovered what the Conservatives deem to be suitable employment.

In Bill C-38, the government has done away with the concept of suitable employment, except in cases when employment arises in consequence of a work stoppage.

The minister also explained that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission would henceforth determine which jobs are suitable for workers based on personal circumstances, working conditions, hours of work, travel time, type of work and salary.

The government also announced the creation of three new categories of claimants: long-tenured workers, frequent claimants and occasional claimants. All of the categories of claimants will be under more pressure to find a job and, within a few weeks, will have to accept any old job at pay that can be just 70% of their previous salary.

As for the notion of reasonable job search, we know that claimants will have to prove that they are conducting daily job searches. We even learned that job seekers would have to prove that they are filling out five job applications a week in urban areas and three applications a week in rural areas.

Claimants will have to keep a journal in which they log all of their job search activities and will have to submit this evidence on request. There will also be a new electronic job alert system that claimants will have to consult, even though claimants do not all have easy access to a computer, let alone the Internet.

Lastly, job seekers will have to search for jobs within a 100 km radius of their home or the equivalent of one hour of commuting time.

I have to say that when I was in Montreal recently, it took me 20 minutes to go through three lights near the Palais des congrès. So the 100 km radius is not always clear.

A few months ago, a man from Carleton was offered a job in Gaspé, even though Gaspé is three and a half hours from Carleton. Someone else, a man from the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, was offered a job in Bonaventure, on the Gaspé Peninsula. That is a twelve-hour trip, including a $50 ferry ride.

How can the minister call these job offers “suitable employment”, when accepting such an offer would cost the unemployed individual one way or another? It would involve either a costly move, uprooting that individual from his community, or a loss of income that could actually exceed the wages offered, after transportation costs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member's comments.

Our government's top priorities are job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

In order to foster a strong and competitive workforce, we want to help Canadians who have lost their job find new jobs as soon as possible. By encouraging unemployed Canadians to take part-time work while they are collecting EI benefits, we know the odds are that this will lead to permanent work and it increases substantially by taking those part-time jobs.

On August 5, we implemented the new working while on claim pilot project that was announced in budget 2012. We know there were some concerns raised about the new pilot project and we listened. On October 5, the government announced its intention to amend the working while on claim pilot project. This amendment will allow those who are working while on claim between August 7, 2011, and August 4, 2012, to revert to the rules of the old pilot project over the next three years. This was done to allow these claimants time to transition to the new pilot project.

The new pilot project will continue to ensure that Canadians are always better off working than not.

But that is not all. We are also taking steps to help Canadians find local jobs that are out there for them.

Sometimes people lack the resources to search effectively for work. Using tools like job bank, we will be sending more frequent and enhanced job alerts and labour market information to Canadians.

We are here to help the unemployed.

At the same time, we recognize there are Canadians who are having difficulty finding work, particularly in the off season in parts of the country where much of the economy is based on seasonal industries. For those who are unable to find employment, employment insurance will continue to be there for them as it always has been.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are simple. The Conservatives have demonstrated unbelievable incompetence by implementing this counter-reform that is not working, that is harming our economy and that is attacking our job seekers.

We saw it a few months ago when changes were made to the notions of suitable employment and reasonable job search. We saw it again a few weeks later when there were problems with the pilot project that allows people to work while receiving benefits. It is now clear that the changes to the appeal mechanism will make it much more difficult for unemployed workers to appeal decisions in order to discourage them from asserting their rights. This will be a complete fiasco.

When will the Conservatives realize that the only alternative is to backtrack completely on this counter-reform and go back and consult with workers before introducing new practical, positive and innovative solutions that do not penalize or stigmatize anyone?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is making improvements to employment insurance so we will help better connect Canadians with jobs in their local labour market.

The working while on claim pilot project is a national three year EI pilot project that came into effect on August 5. The intent of this pilot project is to find a way to help EI claimants stay connected to the labour market.

We believe claimants benefit by accepting work while on claim, even if it is part-time or temporary work.

This new pilot allows EI claimants who are working to keep 50% of their benefits for every dollar they earn. This replaces the 100% clawback for any money above that weekly cap previously.

We know there have been concerns about the current pilot project and we have listened and responded by allowing claimants time to transition to this new pilot project.

Foreign Investment

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 10, we are expecting a federal decision on the purchase of Nexen. Canadians are still in the dark about the details, the framework for making this decision and the implications of the cumulative levels of our natural resources that can be sold to other enterprises, including national enterprises. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Another controversy is linked to that, and that is the pending ratification of the foreign investment protection and promotion agreement, the FIPA, that locks China and Canada into a 31-year trade and investment agreement. Like many Canadians, I have serious concerns about the new FIPA with China.

Everyone in the House knows that trade is vital to our Canadian economy. Historically, Canada has signed foreign investment protection agreements with countries all over the world. It is clear, however, that this agreement is different from any previous FIPAs the Conservative government has signed.

For example, this agreement is with a country that has a non-democratic political system. It has the second largest economy in the world.

Of the approximately 40 FIPAs Canada has signed since 2004, this is the only one that contains provisions allowing the Canadian government to withhold documents from the public and to conduct arbitration hearings behind closed doors. I want to make it clear that I am for trade with China. I am for strong relationships with China. However, I am not for agreements that are signed in the dark.

This agreement would not guarantee market access or real investment protection for Canadian enterprises doing business in China, which means that minimal benefits would accrue to Canadian exporters. However, it would create significant potential financial risks.

Presently, the Canadian government is rapidly eliminating Canada's environmental assessment and navigable waters ecosystem protections. Should a future provincial or federal government decide to restore these environmental safety nets, the agreement could provide Chinese investors with the right to contest any changes that might be seen as affecting their profitability, leading to costly liabilities for Canadian taxpayers and raising serious questions regarding Canadian sovereignty over lands, resources and our environment.

Finally, the federal government has refused to conduct public hearings on this agreement, despite repeated calls from the Liberal Party, trade experts and thousands of Canadian citizens who have significant concerns about the long-term implications of this agreement. Liberals believe that before being finalized, international treaties such as the Canada-China investment agreement must be transparent, include proper consultation and be subject to arm's-length examination to ensure that the best interests of the Canadian people are being served.

That is why I put forward a motion in the House of Commons to require the government to send all such treaties to a parliamentary committee for public hearings and study after being tabled in the House of Commons and prior to the treaty coming into force. If the government was truly committed to being fair, inclusive and open with Canadians, it would support my motion.

It is unacceptable to sign agreements that lack transparency and are closed to the public. The government is not demonstrating any responsibility in this regard. That is why we are calling for transparency and a thorough review by a parliamentary committee.