Debates of May 31st, 2012

Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, there are bound to be unadvertised jobs in the labour market and not all employers would put out formal advertisements.

Fundamentally, we have a problem here. According to Statistics Canada there is a job open for every six unemployed Canadians. That is one of the problems with the amendments that the government is proposing. Obviously with so few jobs open, few unemployed people have an opportunity to find a job, setting aside the issue of good jobs, which is an extremely important issue in the city of Toronto.

Why are we punishing people to find work when the work is not available for them? That is why I do not understand what the government is doing. Those are the statistics. One job is available for every six unemployed people in this country. Those people need help getting new skills. They need support while they are unemployed. What they do not need is a government demonizing them and punishing them for a circumstance which is beyond their control.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

I represent a riding with a very mobile workforce. People from Guysborough, Canso, Mulgrave and all through Cape Breton Island have travelled for years to some of the biggest construction projects in North America and around the world. It is very interesting to have an opportunity to share conversations with people at the airport who are travelling to seek employment and ply their trade.

My colleague from Sydney—Victoria just shared a statistic. In 2006 in Cape Breton there were 1,700 workers from Cape Breton employed in Alberta. It was bringing something like $3 million a week into the local economy. Obviously, there are some social challenges when people are having to travel to work, but certainly it is of benefit to both places. It is of benefit to local communities when they are able to earn that level of income, but it is of benefit to Alberta, Saskatchewan and those provinces that need access to a labour force. Therefore, know full well that I am comfortable with understanding the benefits to both the employers and the employees when a workforce is mobile.

That is not the case in this instance with the changes in regulations. I would like to address them in a couple of different ways. I want to talk about the impact on business; about the department's capacity to really handle these changes, which I call into question; and then whether or not there are better ways to go about it.

First, the impact on business. My good friend from Tobique—Mactaquac had indicated that both employees and employers contribute to the EI fund. The employers in seasonal industries in our communities contribute to this as well. I fear that with the changes in the legislation, it will decimate business operators in seasonal industries. It has the potential to rob them of skilled workers, people who have been with them and provided expertise and services over a long period of time.

I have talked to people in the tourism sector and the forestry sector. They, and obviously people in the fishery, are very nervous about these changes and the potential impacts. I want to read into the record a letter I got from the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture. Beth Densmore, the president, has shared her concerns with both the minister and MPs from Nova Scotia.

First, she makes reference to the fact that the majority of the labour force in the agriculture sector is skilled in a particular profession. It is just that the profession is in a seasonal industry. She says:

We, in the Federation, believe that the proposed changes have not been well thought through and would urge that the Federal Government give greater consideration to the perhaps unintended consequences of such action. Is this simply a way to move the responsibility for the working poor from one level of government (Federal) to another level where the worker's only recourse will be to apply for social assistance (Provincial or Municipal)?

The federation even suggests a possible amendment:

One possible scenario would be to provide an exemption from the proposed EI changes for the resource based industries which depend on a skilled workforce, but, only for a portion of the year.

Maybe that would be something that would make sense. It would certainly alleviate some of the fears that are being put forward by, not just the workers in seasonal industries, but those who operate those businesses and who are really the foundation of rural communities.

In this particular legislation, the government did put $21 million into a particular program. That is the e-alert program. I think it is worthwhile to make more information about potential for job opportunities available to those who are unemployed. That is a positive thing. Right now the rules are there that it is incumbent on those receiving EI benefits to pursue work opportunities, but I think this is of benefit. It is a fairly hefty cost, but it is of benefit.

However, if the government thinks this is going to solve all the problems, it is not. Forty percent of families with a total household income of $30,000 or less have no access to the Internet, and 25% in the bracket of between $30,000 and $50,000 annual household income have no access to the Internet.

We know that the government has carved the guts out of the community access program that enabled people to go to libraries and community centres to access the Internet. That has been lost now, and what we are doing with these actions is placing greater hardship on those who most need that access.

The burning question that begs to be asked is how the government is going to handle the changes in these regulations. We know that right now approximately 180,000 Canadians have waited over 29 days to receive their first employment insurance cheque. The EI processing centres no longer have the capacity to process these claims. We have seen closures in a number of different areas.

We saw the minister try to shore things up and put a band-aid on it last year by putting 400 people in over the Christmas rush to address this issue, but it remains a problem when 180,000 Canadians have waited over 29 days for their first EI cheque.

I know the minister herself was not very aware. The payment indicator, when correspondence is kicked out to someone who has applied for EI, measures both those who get notice of nonpayment and those who actually receive a cheque; she thought everybody was getting a cheque within that period of time. She thought they were doing famously over there, that everybody was happy and everybody was getting their money.

Actually, it is really hard to take a notice of nonpayment to buy groceries for the kids. Once the minister realized that, she did put some additional resources into the processing centres at Christmas time. Again, it was an interim measure.

Now, with all these regulations, we have to hound and pursue workers and find out if they are chasing down the jobs, whether or not the jobs are deemed suitable. There is nothing in the estimates about more resources being provided to make sure these regulations are concurred with. That should raise an alarm to everybody that we should anticipate further delays in payment of EI benefits to those who have earned and deserve them. I am not that confident there and I see nothing in the estimates for that.

I will close with this. The minister was in Halifax, Nova Scotia, recently. I want to read a quote from her into the record. She said:

Why would we want to bring in people from outside when we have people here who need the jobs and who can do them? It only makes economic sense.

There are 140,000 unemployed people in Alberta. There are 25,000 unemployed people in Saskatchewan. If we put them together, that is more than the number of unemployed people in Atlantic Canada. Would it not make more sense to put money into training for those people, rather than shaking people in Atlantic Canada out of their communities? All that is doing is contributing to the further decline in population in rural communities. I think that is the question I would like to pose to the member today.

I want to thank my colleagues in the NDP for bringing this motion forward to the House today.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's comments, as I always do, and I noted with interest that he was applauding many of the changes, but I have one question for him.

Earlier today one of our colleagues from the NDP commented about the $52 billion missing from the EI program. I wonder if my colleague, who was in the government at the time, would care to comment as to where the money is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on that point. When Jean Chrétien came to power in 1993, he inherited a bankrupt EI system. The Auditor General of Canada had instructed the prime minister at that time to put the EI system into general revenues because the unemployment rate then was 12.5%. Under Liberal rule, more jobs were created and the unemployment rate came down to 7.5%. More people were paying in, fewer people were taking out and a surplus was created.

When the Conservatives did away with EI's inclusion in general revenues, they once again created a stand-alone regime, and that system is now $9 billion in arrears. It is back to the future again. We are back to where we were: $9 billion in the hole. Here we go again.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I am not familiar with his riding, but if I am not mistaken, it does include some rural communities.

Our rural communities have trouble accessing the Internet. The government is doing very little to improve digital Internet access. It eliminated the Community Access Program. It took away people's options for accessing the Internet. Obviously, some people cannot afford to pay for Internet service. Yet the government expects people to receive job offers via email. That makes no sense.

I would like my colleague to comment further on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, access to the Internet is not universal. It is available in 85% of communities in the country. Many of the ones that do not have it are rural or remote communities, but that does not make it accessible for people on limited incomes or low-income earners. The cancellation of the funding support for CAP sites has been devastating to those who are trying to make it through, pay bills and raise their families. Again, the $21 million in the e-alert system should help some people, but it would be of very limited assistance to those who do not have access to the Internet.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at is a stepwise process. The minister says she is not interested in telling people they have to leave the communities where they live, but the government is now creating three different tiers for people, including one I find quite offensive, the idea that there is something wrong with a “repeat user”, because that is actually the foundation for seasonal tourism, seasonal fishery and seasonal forestry.

What I see coming is a shrinking in the number of people available for an appeal. Some bureaucrat somewhere will say, “We think there is suitable work for you”, and if the unemployed person says, “I am afraid I cannot get that job or do that job”, for whatever the reasons are, that person will be cut off. Then the appeal is down for however many thousands of people are appealing, and 75 people will make the decision. Then in another year, the government may come back and say it is going to have to ask people to move farther to find work.

I think this is a progression toward closing down seasonal and remote areas. I would ask my friend for his comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks from a position of understanding, her family members being restaurateurs back in Cape Breton for a great number of years. I am sure she did not lead too many to harbourside tables in the middle of February.

There is a lack of understanding on the part of the government about the importance of seasonal industries and how they operate. That is what is riddled throughout this legislation, and that is why I will be supporting this motion today.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-38, the Conservative government is attacking Canada's employment insurance system. Not content with gutting almost all of our country's social programs, the Conservatives have decided to make yet another reform, without consultation.

Employment insurance plays an essential role in this country by providing a safety net, as flimsy as it may be, to protect against the ups and downs of the market economy. Canada is such a large country that fluctuations in the economy generally create some degree of dissonance from one region to another. Thus, the realities of the fisheries on the country's east coast have little to do with those on the west. The same holds true for forestry development and the tourism-related service industry.

We have always been faced with regional disparities, which become less pronounced in periods of prosperity and more pronounced in periods of crisis. Thus, the unprecedented economic crisis that western economies have been experiencing for the past few years has served only to further accentuate the economic difficulties of some regions of Canada. No one here, in this time of crisis, has spoken about maintaining the status quo in applying the Employment Insurance Act. As legislators, members of Parliament in this House are all aware of their responsibilities, which are all the more important in these times of fiscal restraint.

However, questioning the employment insurance system in this time of crisis cannot be done without a minimum amount of consultation with subject matter experts, the political class concerned and the social groups that provide front line, essential services to people who are looking for work.

The Conservative government is forgetting the human tragedies resulting from the loss of employment in the regions. The thousands of unemployed workers who are receiving employment insurance benefits are getting only a fraction of their former salaries, which negatively impacts the resources available for community development.

This most recent EI reform, which attacks labour force mobility and the prerogative of job seekers to use their skills, does not take regional realities into account at all. What is more, the change to the definition of suitable employment ignores the minimum measure of dignity that must be included de facto in this type of program.

We built these programs to help the unemployed and meet the minimum needs of individuals and communities in crisis. Today, the current government is attempting to redefine the relationship between citizens and the state by introducing fundamental ideological messages within these reforms of Canada's social security system. The government does not have the mandate to redefine the role of the state and the social programs that are definitely part of our national identity. Our mandate is to make the country work in spite of the inherent differences resulting, in part, from its vastness.

This employment insurance reform is an attack on seasonal workers, and will force them to move in order to take jobs for which they have few or no qualifications. The government wants to force people, by imposing mandatory wage cuts for the jobs to which they apply, to go into areas of the labour market that are foreign to them. The fisher or forestry worker must now redefine suitable employment and trust an employment insurance system that denies the seasonal economic reality of these industries. The Conservative government is introducing reforms without serious studies of the economic and social consequences.

By reducing administrative employment insurance appeals, the government is ensuring that any impulse to appeal is nipped in the bud. The government is saying no to consultation and no to appeals.

On the east coast, in Quebec and the Maritimes, large sectors of our economy are subject to seasonal employment rules.

The Conservatives' announcement on EI reform upsets an already precarious balance for the people working in the fishery, forestry and tourism. Failing to consult local decision-makers, economists, the opposition and social groups about this reform shows the Conservatives' lack of sensitivity toward the regions and reveals beyond a doubt their ideological rigidity that draws on theories from another century that are no longer current in a complex and ever-changing world.

Changing employment insurance without consulting the local communities is contemptuous and disregards the historic reality of this country and its regions.

We cannot forget the successive structural crises that have affected our fisheries and our forestry and held them hostage in the international regulatory no man's land for which the Conservatives have such an affinity.

Legislating the changes proposed by the Conservatives without consulting Canadians is symptomatic of a government that relies blindly on market forces.

We have a duty to bring in reforms, because the government must be the people's watchdog when it comes to crises that shake up the world every so often. We must bring in these reforms while remaining focused on restoring regional economies, which have been abandoned by this government, which still believes in the principle of natural justice at a time when government intervention is crucial to social cohesion.

In closing, I would remind the members opposite that our economic performance today and our national security depend heavily on a government that engages with its people and its institutions. Believing that these EI reforms will fix regional inequalities and give jobs to the unemployed is magical thinking.

Before making any changes to the EI system, the Conservatives have a moral obligation to help rebuild the regional economies that have been devastated by globalization, technological changes and environmental degradation. The proposed EI reforms are unequivocal proof of this government's lack of vision and realism. Furthermore, this reform could deprive regional economies of the temporary foreign workers needed to work in seasonal industries.

This extremely symbolic displacement of workers forced to apply for jobs within a one-hour commute of their homes will affect the structure of seasonal employment in the regions. Without a doubt, we need to examine the costs involved in this kind of reform, by highlighting the real economic contribution that seasonal jobs make to our communities, and to work on creating economic programs that will support local economies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the end of my colleague's speech. In light of her own party's record on employment insurance cuts through the 1990s, how can she can justify those today?

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

The world has changed since the 1990s. It is different. The economic situation and the employment insurance situation were both different. My justification has nothing to do with it. In the 1990s, we had not gone through the economic crisis that we have now gone through. Our problems are different. They have nothing to do with each other.

That question has nothing to do with what I said.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to several speakers in the last while, and it amazes me that they keep fearmongering about the seasonal employment issue. They know full well that is what they are doing. However, if they had taken any time to read what has been brought forward, they would know these are reasonable measures.

We are not asking people to move from one side of the country to the other side of the country. Places that have issues with high unemployment are not going to be affected at all by this. These people will still be able to continue to claim EI.

I would like for one of the members opposite to stand and explain to me why they figure they are doing justice to Canadian workers, who need to be supported and to find jobs and would like to find jobs, by fearmongering and scaring them as if we are going to make them move from one side of the country to the other. The members know full well that is not the truth.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what I was talking about. I never said that there is no need for employment insurance reform. I said that the proposed reform was developed without consultation. Without consultation, the government's solution is nothing but its personal take on the situation. It does not take the regions into account.

Yesterday we talked about co-operatives. Co-operatives create employment, and that has nothing to do with the 750,000 jobs that have been created. It is great that 750,000 jobs have been created, but the proposed changes to employment insurance will not solve the problems of people in the regions. That is all I am saying. If the government had consulted with people in the regions, it would have understood the situation. Municipalities are dying. Nobody lives there anymore. Towns will have to be shut down. The government's proposal is like saying that, since these people do not have jobs, the municipality will have to be shut down, and they will have to move somewhere else so they can get jobs.

Is that what the government is suggesting with its proposal?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain for taking on the Conservatives and the NDP for its questions.

My question for her is about rural Quebec. We know from the Atlantic caucus what this will do for seasonal industries. The member talked about the depopulation that would happen in many rural communities. How will depopulation affect rural Quebec, whether that be in the Gaspé area, or northern Quebec or many rural areas there?

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how is this employment insurance reform going to solve the rural problem? I do not see how it will. We are all working hard in our ridings to find solutions to help people find work. Co-operatives are one example of that. I am from a region that was once prosperous because of forestry. All of the jobs in that sector have been lost. I do not see how the government's proposal will help solve the problem of poor people who do not have jobs.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for Hamilton Mountain, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Monday, June 4, 2012, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer have unanimous consent to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

(Motion agreed to)

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I have the honour of sharing my time with the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

Today we are discussing the motion regarding the proposed changes to the employment insurance system. This motion is a wonderful initiative from my colleague from Hamilton Mountain. This issue is very important to the people in my riding of Chambly—Borduas, who are concerned for many reasons that I will list today.

The first reason is that the changes will require daily proof of job searches. At the same time, job seekers will receive job offers via email. I addressed this issue earlier by asking a question to my colleague, but I would like to discuss it a little more.

In my riding, one of the municipalities, Marieville, is experiencing a problem that many citizens and even the mayor, Alain Ménard, have had the opportunity to tell us about. It is a matter of access to the Internet. This is not a rural municipality; it borders the greater Montreal metropolitan area, on the south shore. People have noticed a big problem. They have tried to get help from the CRTC to improve digital Internet services in the region. Increasingly, different types of Internet services are being required, and people in rural areas have a hard time accessing them. This is particularly true in Marieville, which is in my riding.

The reason why this is relevant here is that, as I said, we are talking about sending job offers by email, but not everyone has access to the Internet. It goes without saying that, often, people who have lower-paying, less stable jobs—which is often the case for people who are receiving employment insurance benefits—cannot necessarily afford Internet access, even if they live in urban areas where Internet access is easy to obtain. It is therefore hard to see how these job offers will help people.

It is said that people who cannot afford to pay for Internet access can go to the municipal library, for example. However, this presents another problem that was again pointed out to me by the people of my riding and that has to do with the municipal library in Saint-Basile-le-Grand, where I live and where my office is located.

The municipal library offers excellent services, but, unfortunately, it is going to have to reduce the services and Internet access it provides as a result of cuts to the community access program. This was an excellent program that was renewed every year in the budget. It did not just help community organizations, but also municipal libraries. These are very important tools for young people and people with low incomes who cannot always afford such luxuries.

When cuts were made to this program and this service was reduced, once again, people found themselves in a situation where they have one less way of accessing the Internet. This is one of the problems. When we look at the problems this is creating in my riding, we can see why these changes are of such great cause for concern.

The other situation, which my colleagues have addressed many times today in the House, and which I will address again to discuss how it applies to my riding, is seasonal work in tourism, agriculture and other areas. Workers in these sectors have to rely on employment insurance during the off season, especially in tourism, which is very significant in my riding. I am thinking about the city of Chambly, where one attraction is Fort Chambly, a Heritage Canada-recognized site run by Parks Canada. Many tourists from across Canada come to see it. From what we heard in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage a few weeks ago, it is one of the most visited Parks Canada sites in the region and in Quebec during the summer.

Jobs there are filled by seasonal workers, who work in tourism of course because many of the tourism programs do not operate during the winter.

These people will not only have to look for another job, but they will have to accept a job that pays less than Parks Canada has been paying them at Fort Chambly.

What is more, in the same bill, the Trojan Horse that is Bill C-38, the government also proposes cuts to Parks Canada that will cause even more problems at Fort Chambly. They knew for weeks that there would be significant cuts to this heritage site in my riding.

This heritage site is suffering a double whammy, not to mention the negative impact on the employees who work at this site during the summer season.

Aside from tourism, there is also agriculture. Although my riding is located between urban and rural regions, on the south shore of Montreal, there are still some farmers in my riding. The work they do is extremely important. This work is very interesting, because it is focusing on sustainable development. These people will have to cut back on their work in this extremely important field for environmental reasons. Their system will have to be completely transformed in light of the proposed changes. I am thinking in particular of wine producers and all kinds of agricultural producers who are not necessarily in my riding but who are in the greater Montérégie area. This will have a negative impact on them.

Incidentally, up until now, I have focused mainly on employers—people who provide services. We often hear that workers have contributed to this system and that they are entitled to use it, but the employers have also contributed to this system and have the right to be defended.

Therefore, it is important to point out that employers will also be punished by the proposed changes. Some will have to close their doors or points of service because the people they depend on to do the work will not return to their former jobs if they are forced to look for other seasonal jobs. At some point, workers will want a certain amount of stability.

If I leave my seasonal job for minimum wage work that is more regular, as required by these changes, it is hard for me to see why I would jump from job to job. This will also punish employers. I believe that it is very important to point this out.

Many business people came to my office to see me this past week, after these changes were announced. Before I am told that it is not true, I would like to give a specific example. I had the opportunity to speak with Ms. Larose, whose husband, Mr. Bélisle, owns a company in Mont-Saint-Hilaire, in my riding, and employs six seasonal workers. The company is called Irrigation Pro-Jet and it will have to close if the proposed changes are introduced. That is the perspective of one businessman.

Small and medium-sized businesses will be adversely affected, and workers will also be negatively impacted.

It is extremely important to point out the negative impact this will have on small and medium-sized businesses and on employers. I hope I have refuted the specious argument that we do not defend employers' interests. It is in their interests as well to prevent these changes.

That is why I am proud to support the motion of my colleague from Hamilton Mountain and to oppose these illogical changes that are harmful to our society.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas on his excellent presentation.

I am from Saint-Jean, the riding next to Chambly—Borduas, and I know how much the tourism industry in that riding has suffered as a result of the flooding in 2011, as has my riding of Saint-Jean.

I would like the hon. member to explain how this change to the Employment Insurance Act will add salt to the wound. Not only has this riding been affected by floods, but, as my colleague mentioned, the cuts to Parks Canada will affect the wonderful Fort Chambly site, which is an important national historic site, as my colleague said.

How will this change to employment insurance put even more pressure on seasonal jobs?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and neighbour for his question.

He raised an excellent point. Several factors have had a negative impact in my region. Obviously, the floods were unavoidable. I am still impressed by the people in my community who rallied even when they did not get the help they expected. Fortunately, our region and our communities are strong.

That being said, as the member mentioned, in addition to the cuts included in this Trojan Horse bill, the government will cause even more problems in the tourism sector. Parks Canada is not the only tourism stakeholder in the region. All of the local businesses offer more services during the busy season. There are even seasonal restaurants because that time of the year is so much busier. Things are much quieter at other times of the year.

Clearly, several factors will have negative repercussions in the long term, as my colleague said. That is why we have to oppose this measure.

The government is missing the big picture because all of the changes will really have a negative impact on people in my region.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion by the member from Hamilton Mountain, which condemns the changes to employment insurance.

Since the May 2, 2011, election, I have held a privileged position because I am an observer of the government's actions from inside this Parliament. The current government has not necessarily demonstrated leadership and vision. It is more of a bean-counting government, although I have absolutely nothing against accountants, far from it. This government will take stock, take the budget and mark all the places where it will make cuts. I find that there is a lack of vision and leadership.

Over the years, Canada has put in place a social safety net so that no one in this beautiful and great country is abandoned. During the election campaign, and afterwards, I had the opportunity to meet the people in my riding of LaSalle—Émard.

Let me paint a picture. Over the years, the industrial park has gradually cleared out. Walking along Saint-Patrick Street, one would see many buildings for lease, buildings that used to house businesses. These businesses have shut down and gone away. That is the reality: industrial parks in Quebec and the rest of Canada have changed considerably.

Large corporations that used to hire hundreds of workers have been transformed and have moved everything out, making room for smaller businesses. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it means that fewer workers are needed. As a result, some workers who used to work for those large corporations and earned good salaries are now unemployed. These are unfortunate circumstances, which everyone hopes are temporary. That is why employment insurance was created. We wanted to have measures to deal with such changes whenever big economic or industrial fluctuations occur in order to ensure that families could continue to live decently when they are hit by layoffs or job losses. I think any good, responsible government has such a duty.

We can see how things have changed over the years, particularly in my riding. Manufacturing jobs, which in general were well paid, stable and long term, have been mainly replaced by far less stable, minimum wage jobs, often putting people at the mercy of the service industry's needs. This industry is cyclical by nature and experiences ups and downs.

That is why I support the motion that was put forward. This government is more of an accountant than a visionary. It does not want to govern for all Canadians, and so the changes it wants to make to employment insurance will fail more and more Canadians and, once again, increase the gap between the rich and the poor.

That is why I am rising to support the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.