Debates of Feb. 5th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance Program

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to clarify.

I do not understand why she would say such things and talk about faulty information. We know full well that the government reneged on its decision during the pilot project. Anyone who was affected between August 2011 and August 2012 can choose between the old and the new method because the NDP proved that they would lose out with the new method of calculation. I have the numbers to back me up and I can provide them.

How can she say that it is faulty information, when it is coming from the other side?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. I think what the member was commenting on in my speech I clearly stated in my speech. As I said to the critic for human resources earlier, personal circumstances, travel time and other items like that are taken into account. However, the opposition members continue to fearmonger and put forward information that misleads the public.

We want to make sure that Canadians have jobs. We have created 920,000 net new jobs since the downturn of the recession because of our effective economic action plan. I encourage the members opposite to get on board. Let us create jobs for Canadians so that they can have a great quality of life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very clear, concise, non-rhetorical question. Could the parliamentary secretary provide me with some information?

Sometimes when legislation is passed, there are unintended consequences. The federal government itself is a large employer of casual employees. During tax time, CRA ramps up. During various times of the year, government departments ramp up. We know that the cost of training an individual, such as someone who works in Citizenship and Immigration Canada on a casual basis, runs between $12,000 to $15,000 per year.

I am sure the member could tell me what impact this would have on the federal public service, how many casual employees it would have and the cost the federal government will incur with the loss of some of these employees. Without question, the government will lose a great number of these casual employees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is asking me about the attrition of employees.

I will say that the Government of Canada, as well as employers across this country, have created 920,000 net new jobs since the downturn of the recession. This government has had a very focused economic action plan to create jobs and long-term prosperity.

Regarding specific questions the member opposite may have, I am happy to speak to him afterwards. If there is information I can get for him, I am happy to do so.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member as she spoke about the many positives that are occurring out there with regard to changes to the employment insurance system. One of the positive changes I have seen has been commented on by some of my constituents who are anxious to make sure that there is no abuse of the system. I think the hon. member discussed that.

Could the hon. member comment on how employment insurance is assisting people who need a hand looking for available jobs, particularly in their area or elsewhere? How is the EI system customizing the search?

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

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance program has done a number of things to better connect Canadians with available jobs. One of those items is an increase in the number of job alerts. Individuals will receive frequent job alerts. As opposed to one every two or three weeks, now it will be two to three per day to better connect them.

I also encourage Canadians to go to our website, www.workingincanada.gc.ca. It is a fabulous resource that has new tools on it. The website provides opportunities to connect Canadians with jobs in their local areas as well as opportunities across the entire country. I encourage Canadians to go to that website or their Service Canada office so that they can find the jobs that will help them make sure their families can stay in their local areas and have a great quality of life.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak about this important legislation. I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Simcoe—Grey, the hard-working Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour. The member is also a professional pediatrician and a real asset to our community. We thank her for giving up her profession, although she is still on call, working double-duty, and has her hand on the pulse of the country, helping Canadians. She is passionate about this particular aspect of employment insurance and ensuring that we have this stop-gap measure in place to help Canadians in the difficult times between jobs.

I would first like to drill down into some of the details of what our government is doing to connect Canadians with available jobs. It is very important to clarify that the changes we are making are ensuring that unemployed Canadians are made aware of the available work in their local labour markets within their skill set. Basically, if there is no available work within their skill set, then EI will be there to support them as it always has been.

The government has established clear definitions for suitable employment and reasonable job search. These new definitions provide clarity for Canadians. Please note that these improvements only apply to Canadians receiving regular EI benefits and EI fishing benefits, specifically those from our coastal communities. They do not apply to Canadians receiving EI special benefits, such as the maternity, paternity, compassionate and sickness benefits.

I will focus on suitable employment for a moment. Several factors will affect the definition of suitable employment, including first and foremost the personal circumstances of the claimant. I think this is the point that the opposition may have avoided mentioning. Sometimes the opposition uses a bit of scare factor, using inaccurate information about the impact of these changes.

As a member of Parliament from western Canada, I was born and raised in Alberta and spent the last 23 years in beautiful British Columbia. I have owned my own business and worked for a variety of companies. I have been a union member and in management of an international company. I understand that applying for EI is not something anyone enjoys, probably ranking right up there with having a root canal done.

From my experience, the vast majority of Service Canada employees are hard-working, dedicated and professional people who care about Canadians. They care about my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country and all of our constituents across the country from our 308 respective ridings. They take the personal circumstances of each claimant into consideration when they are determining what is considered suitable employment. The claimants receiving EI will not have to accept work if they have a health problem that prevents them from taking a particular job.

Here I think it is important to eliminate some of the fearmongering and non-factual information out there, and let Canadians rest assured that we want to lay out the facts and the truth.

If claimants have family obligations preventing them from working at certain times of the day or if they have limited transportation, for example, for commuting to and from work, that will also be taken into consideration. Of course, if claimants are not physically capable of performing the work, they will not be required to take a job.

As the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has mentioned many times in the House, these changes will be implemented in a fair and reasonable way. I think it is very important to reassure Canadians that this is fair and reasonable.

However, the topics raised by the opposition have not been reasonable. They have created fear about commuting times, telling people that they will have to take any job within a day's drive or something of that sort. The reality is that the requirement is for a job within an hour's commute, unless the claimant's previous commuting history and the community's average commuting times are longer. That is simple common sense.

If a claimant indicates they cannot travel outside their community because they do not have a car, that will be taken into consideration. Canada has the world's 34th largest population, but is the 2nd largest country geographically speaking. It is a very diverse country, so we have to take each region into consideration.

I will focus now on the two criteria for suitable employment that have drawn the most attention. One is the type of work, and the other is the wages that are considered reasonable. Frequent claimants are those who have had three or more claims for regular or fishing benefits and have collected more than 60 weeks of EI benefits in the past five years. Clarifying what a frequent claimant is important, I think.

Frequent claimants would be required to expand their job search to jobs similar to the job they normally perform from the start of their EI claim. They would also be required to look for work that pays wages starting at 80% of their previous hourly wage. If a claimant has had three claims, then they have to apply for jobs paying 80% of their previous hourly wage.

In determining what criteria will apply, EI claimants will be placed in one of three categories: long-tenured workers, frequent claimants and occasional claimants. I will take a few moments to define these categories.

First, the long-tenured workers are those who have paid into the EI system for the past 7 of 10 years and have collected EI regular or fishing benefits for 35 weeks or less over the last 5 years. These workers will initially be required to look for a similar job that pays 90% of their previous wages. After 18 weeks of EI benefits, long-tenured workers would be required to expand their search to jobs within their previous field and apply for jobs that pay 80% of their previous wages. Therefore, after first looking for work paying 90% of their previous wages and having been on benefits for 18 weeks, they would have to look for work paying 80% of their previous salary. After receiving benefits for a further 6 weeks, they would need to expand their search to any work they are qualified to perform so long as the wages are within 70% of the wages of their previous employment.

Occasional claimants would include those not captured by the definitions of frequent and long-tenured workers. Occasional claimants would be allowed to limit their job search to their usual occupation with similar wages, of at least 90% of their previous hourly wage, for the first six weeks of their claim. After receiving benefits for 6 weeks, they would have to expand their search for jobs similar to the one they normally do with wages of 80% of their previous earnings. After 18 weeks they would then need to further expand their job search to include any work they are qualified to perform so long as the wage is at least 70% of their previous earnings. They have a tiered process and different percentages over time.

It is a sad statement when the opposition engages in disinformation or fearmongering. I feel I need to point out the obvious, which is that no one would ever need to accept employment below minimum wage. No Canadian would have to. The fact is

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Order. There will be a period for questions and comments. If members want to participate in the debate, I would ask them to hold off until then and allow the hon. member for Kelowna to finish his speech.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I know we are all here to help provide decorum in the House and I thank you for providing that discretion.

The simple truth is that under these changes, EI claimants will always make more working than claiming EI. As many people know, employment insurance pays 55% of a person's average weekly income. Therefore, even if someone is a frequent claimant, a reasonable job will offer at least 70% of his or her previous earnings, which is a substantial increase over the 55% of earnings collected on EI.

This is why the opposition motion in the House today is factually incorrect. Canadians receiving EI will only be required to look for work paying significantly more than what they are currently collecting on EI. That will not push them into poverty; in fact, it will be quite the opposite.

Let me be clear on a further point. The Prime Minister has said many times in the House that if there are no available jobs, EI benefits will continue to support Canadians, as they always have. It is simple.

I will now turn briefly to the topic of reasonable job search. Canadians receiving EI benefits will be required to undertake job search activities, including researching and assessing job prospects; drafting a resumé; searching for job vacancies; applying for positions; attending interviews and undertaking other efforts to improve their employability, such as attending workshops, going to employment agencies and job fairs. I think all Canadians want to work, so we are trying, through our Service Canada staff, to help them become more employable.

EI claimants will also be required to look for a job daily and to keep a record of their job search. These search efforts will be consistent with the opportunities available, something that has already been in process. For example, in a community with few job openings, a job search should focus on identifying new opportunities and not on applying for the same job or to the same business every day. In comparison, a job search in an area with numerous job opportunities should focus on both identifying and applying for available positions.

As part of the investment we are making under this initiative, EI claimants will be made aware of local jobs in their labour market.

These improvements to EI will help more Canadians get back into the labour force and enable them to better support themselves and their families. Unfortunately, we have seen the opposition attempt to play the politics of fear and confuse Canadians into believing things that are untrue.

Personally, I am not into fearmongering and I do not think it is helpful to Canadians and my constituents or any of our constituents. Sadly, this is not the first time we have seen the members opposite ignore the clear realities of the Canadian economy to advance their narrow political interests.

I would ask all hon. members of the House to support our government's plan for jobs, growth and economic prosperity. This is the reason Canada is leading the G8 in job growth with 920,000 net new jobs created since the depth of the recession. About 90% of them are full-time jobs and 75% have been created by the private sector.

Therefore, I would encourage all members of the House to join me in voting against this factually incorrect motion. Let all members of the House stand shoulder to shoulder to work together to make Canada a stronger, safer and better place for all.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no federal minimum wage. Thus while the member opposite is suggesting that people will not be paid below minimum wage, the minimum wage does not exist in Canada.

Commute times in Toronto are longer than any other place in North America, so his suggestion that people will have to abide by the average community standard for commute times brings into question the Conservatives' failure to supply public transit funding to cities like Toronto.

My real question is about the spiral that the new EI regulations will cause to the wages of those people forced to take jobs paying pay less than their former pay. I think the member opposite would agree that if people take a job at 70% of their former wage and are subsequently laid off again, the new 70% is really only 49% of their previous wage. As a result, there will be a downward spiral in the wage system, because the government has refused to permit those claimants to use their old wage as the new wage.

Would the member opposite like to comment on that?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that the federal government sets the minimum wage. It is up to each province. Canada is a federation made up of 10 provinces and three territories. We are well aware of that. We work together with the private sector to create jobs. We factor in the regional geographic differences across Canada, as I mentioned, and Service Canada takes those differences into consideration.

I also want to clarify a lot of misinformation about the employment insurance program across Canada. The Globe and Mail is one of Canada's largest daily newspapers. Last Friday it ran an article and then on Saturday in about six point font ran a clarification on page 2 saying the following:

An article published Friday on changes to the federal employment insurance plans said many could lose their benefits if they fail to find off-season, lower-paying jobs. The article should have stated that if work is not available in the region, EI will continue.

That is a substantial difference; it was misinformation. I know there is a lot of pressure on reporters in the 24-hour news cycle but drive by reporting like this does not help Canadians.

The fact is that every unemployed Canadian would like to have a job. Employment is a factor across Canada. We want to see all Canadians working. Let us work together to make that happen.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member for Kelowna--Lakeshore, but he is entirely wrong on two points. I see this happening with some of the propaganda coming from the minister in this regard.

The member said that the Prime Minister has stated that the changes would permit EI recipients to receive EI benefits “as they always have”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Those on maternity leave usually work a four or eight hour shift. They go in to work to keep up their licence or to keep up their skills. However, what is happening under the new system is that half of their maternity benefits are clawed back. Therefore, they are quitting their jobs because these are not worth the drive and paying a babysitter. That is serious matter. It is affecting them, the health care system and the economy.

Is that not correct?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is Kelowna--Lake Country, not Kelowna--Lakeshore. We do have a beautiful lake shore. I welcome all Canadians to come and visit beautiful Okanagan Lake and the Okanagan Valley.

I enjoy working with the hon. member for Malpeque in the House and on the trade committee.

Specifically, the employment insurance file is important for all Canadians of all ages. My riding of Kelowna--Lake Country is fortunate because it has a very diverse community. British Columbia has been successful in creating jobs. I have been working on some programs, including the youth employment strategy. In the last budget $50 million was included over two years. We all work with the Canada summer jobs program, which helps young adults going through university get their education. We want to ensure that jobs are in place. We are making common sense, practical changes. At UBC and Okanagan College all trades are coming together to create a stronger, viable workforce for all of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Bourassa.

I am very much pleased that the NDP brought forward this motion today to speak about this very important matter, because really we did not have an opportunity. I sit on the human resources standing committee and this issue, as all in the House would know, was brought forward in the omnibus bill, so the impacts of these changes were never given a fulsome debate. Certainly, there are consequences here that will have tremendous negative impacts on many communities in this country.

I know that the Conservatives are trying to paint this as fearmongering. The exercise here is to try to bring them to the light, bring them to the truth, to the fact that these changes will have substantive negative impacts on many communities and Canadians. They will be far-reaching.

If members do not believe the opposition, then they should listen to the premiers from across the country.

Pauline Marois had a one-on-one meeting with the Prime Minister. She said that the meeting was okay and that they talked about the promises he has made with respect to fixing EI, because she had brought forth concerns about the changes to EI to the Prime Minister.

Let us talk not just about Premier Robert Ghiz but all party leaders in Prince Edward Island, who went across the province to solicit input from Prince Edward Islanders. In unison they said that these changes will hurt islanders.

In Nova Scotia we saw Premier Darrel Dexter and Liberal leader Stephen McNeil both raise these concerns. Jamie Baillie, who is a little shy of the boss, was not quite ready to make the jump and stand up for Nova Scotians, but I am glad the other two did.

They are speaking because they know that these changes will have a tremendous impact on them, because the people who will be losing access to or who will be knocked off of EI benefits because of the government's changes will end up on the provincial welfare rolls. That is the next step.

The Conservative government does not understand that so many Canadians live their lives that close to the line. That is a fact. The government should listen to the concerns that are being raised by the premiers. I doubt it will.

Municipal leaders right across the country, especially in rural communities, have sounded the alarm. I know in my own riding that the councils of Warden Lloyd Hines of Guysborough County and Warden Duart MacAulay of Inverness County have raised the issue of the impacts of these changes.

At the provincial level we see that there will be a movement of people out of rural communities to Saskatchewan and Alberta. The country will be tilted toward Saskatchewan and Alberta. This is coming from a guy who spent nine years in Fort McMurray, a place I have a lot of time for, and I really enjoyed the time I spent there. However, people should not be forced to make that decision. The premiers say that is where the people are going. The municipal leaders say that the changes are chasing people out of rural communities into urban centres. That will be the movement there.

It is not just seasonal workers. The municipal leaders understand because they are closer to the problem. They deal with problems day in and day out. They understand that if a group of seasonal workers has to leave town, then the merchants, the teachers and the nurses will leave town. When that critical mass is not there, services are lost because they can no longer be justified. Therefore, it is not just about those seasonal workers. It is about the impact on the seasonal industries and their access to trained labour. That is the broader issue here.

It is pretty cute. Some people have to get off the Hill. People have to get out and see what is going on in other areas of the country. I find, as a member from a rural area in one of the regions, that I am always trying to bring the reality of the region into the bubble here.

The parliamentary secretary stood up and said the changes are great for her riding. They are embraced by her riding. The annual household income in her riding is $90,000 a year. The unemployment rate is just over 6%.

Let us compare that to Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, where the unemployment rate is 17% and the annual household income is $40,000 less. It is a different reality.

Might I say that the incomes of $40,000 less are from revenue being generated almost entirely through seasonal industries. I know that in Nova Scotia almost over half of the regional GDP is generated through seasonal industries.

I have had an opportunity to speak with industry leaders, business leaders and organizations. I had a representation from the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture. It is very fearful of the impacts of the changes being brought forward by the government.

The landscape association of Nova Scotia has shared its concerns. At one time, to be a landscaper all one needed was a half-ton truck and a wheelbarrow, and one could put oneself forward as a landscaper. I know that over the last 10 to 15 years there has been a lot put into professional development and training of professional landscapers.

Sometimes it is tough to lay sod in February. Many landscapers knit together landscaping in the summer with snow removal in the winter. However, sometimes there are gaps for their employees. They are fearful they are going to lose those trained employees. It is somewhat naive to take untrained employees, put them on a front-end loader that is worth $200,000 and expect that the machine will be looked after and there will be productivity. They need trained, skilled labourers as well.

I have been speaking with people in the tourism sector or people who own fishery operations. These people too need people year after year who are trained. They are fearful, and I am also hearing from business that because people have to go from $15 an hour to $10 an hour, they will take that job until the $15 an hour job is back up again. The employer who has the $10 an hour job is going to be forced to seek yet another employee. There will be a turnstile of employees with those lower wage jobs. The greater fear, for those who work in those industries, is there will be a downward pressure on wages, on the payment per hour. Benefits for those people will be at risk.

There were comments made by my colleague, for whom I have a lot of respect, to say people will not make less than minimum wage. That is why it is called minimum wage. When one hits the bottom, there is nowhere to go.

The most egregious aspect of this is the contempt government members have held for seasonal workers in this country. We read last week that there is a bonus being paid to the public servants who can find anybody who runs afoul with the EI system. The government has put a bounty on seasonal workers. Any public servant who can shake a seasonal worker out is going to get a reward.

If there is anything, it has to start from a position of respect. It is obvious through these changes that the government holds no respect for seasonal workers, for rural communities and for people in those industries. That is why I will be supporting this motion today and why I will be encouraging my party to support this motion today.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been in the House of Commons for a long time now and he knows his region well.

The minister and the parliamentary secretary are telling us that the government did not actually reform employment insurance, it just made clarifications. But the Prime Minister himself has said that employment insurance was reformed.

I have been involved with employment insurance since 1988, and I was elected to the House in 1997. Never before have people had to work for 70% of their salary or travel up to an hour from home. What is more, the board of referees will cease to exist and umpires will be replaced by 38 people.

Does the member feel that this constitutes reform or just clarification?

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

Mr. Speaker, to try to pass this off as just clarification is the biggest ruse. These guys have been exceptional at saying one thing and—let us take, for example, working while on claim. We have pushed them and pushed them on working while on claim. I know my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said that they solved it. We were asking questions for a week and a half before they rose on the question. However, it does not matter. The member is there now and is doing a good job.

The minister stood here and we pounded her for about a month. Then she woke up and said they were going to have to do something.

All they did is doctor it up a bit. They said they were going to do something and they said that they were going to respect the old program, which was of benefit to anybody who only worked one, two or three days a week. If that is all the work they could get, it would be of benefit. The disincentive was taken out under the old program. They said they were going to fix it.

We know how that played out. There was no fix at all. People would try to register under the old program and the people at Service Canada would say, “Are you sure you want to do this, because we'd sooner have you on the new program?” One person who came to our office said he was asked the question six to eight times, “Are you sure you want to? We'd sooner have you on the new program”.

It is all smoke and mirrors. I will tell members who is getting gassed here. It is the seasonal workers in this country.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have seen here an unbelievable performance from the member for Cape Breton—Canso. It is a sign of where the Liberal Party is today: talking down the economy; talking down the capacity of Canadian communities to create jobs and opportunity; talking down the fact that there are tens of thousands of jobs across this country, including in Atlantic Canada, that are going unfilled. His argument seems to be that because there are some ridings in this country where unemployment is a little higher, where employment insurance is going to have to be used a bit more—it is going to be there for Canadians—that we should not touch the system at all, that we should not reform it, that we should not make it work better, that we should not do these things that are necessary in the 21st century.

He does not want to clarify the rules. He prefers vagueness. He does not want unemployed people to get information about what jobs are available.

Does he not agree that his proposal to oppose reform of the employment insurance system would actually lead to higher unemployment and would prevent Canadians from getting jobs that are there?

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

Mr. Speaker, talk about disappointment. It is unbelievable. The last time this guy got up, he said it was just clarification. Now, he is up and is beating his chest about reform. Reform for sure. The whole bunch of them are reform. That is what they have shown here.

We do not fix one problem on the backs of the vulnerable. We do not fix one problem by creating a whole bunch of other problems.

I am all for reassessing programs. I am all for keeping programs current. However, I am not for hurting one group for the benefit of another. That is what these changes are doing, these clarifications, these reforms, whatever he wants to call them in his next speech. Whatever he calls them, they are hurting Canadians.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend and congratulate my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso for his work on the EI file.

To hear the government playing with words today and trying to take us for fools is quite outrageous.

I commend my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on her motion. Obviously, it is not a competition to determine who spoke first. As parliamentarians, we must make sure that we work together in the best interests of the public.

What makes me sick in all of this is that the government is in the process of creating different classes of Canadians. In other words, the government is targeting people who have chosen to live in a remote area, who have the right to have their place in the sun. Often it is a matter of tradition, such as a family of fishermen who have lived in the same place since the 17th century. They are now being told that if there is work in Alberta, they have to move there.

Is that how we define Canada? That is completely unacceptable. What is worse is how it is being pushed on us. First they force a massive omnibus bill on us and then they start talking about clarification. This has been going on for months, and then on a Friday evening around 5 p.m., right before Christmas, they shove this down our throats.

In the meantime, many people are having a hard time making ends meet. They are being told to go work an hour away from home if they want to work, but there is nothing much to see there but trees. The government is also suggesting that the workers take a 30% wage cut, even though they will have to pay for the extra gas and extra daycare costs. As for single parent families, they are being told to sort things out themselves, otherwise they will lose their benefits and be forgotten. They will then end up on social assistance and will no longer be the federal government's problem. They will become the provinces' problem, end of story.

I have been an MP for 16 years and I have never seen anything like this. They can point fingers at us all they want. When we were in government we made changes. And when the minister disagreed with my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, he had the courage to go see the workers and talk to them. Whether we agreed or disagreed, the minister had the courage to go see them. Now, the ministers hide. Members come here in their bubble to try to talk about clarification, but they are hiding.

We never, ever abandoned seasonal workers. How did we manage? We implemented pilot projects and we also tried to find alternative solutions. We always tried to find solutions that would allow people in the regions to have their place in the sun.

What I find tiresome is the fact that not only does this government take the divide and conquer approach, but it also pits the regions against one another. This government is telling people in the regions to leave because there are jobs elsewhere. I am happy that there are jobs in some regions, especially in the natural resources sector. However, the beauty of this country lies in its diversity. It is natural for people to decide to stay in their region and make a living from what they do best, whether it is in the fishery, agriculture, forestry or tourism.

Furthermore, the parliamentary secretary, with her condescending bombast, told us that everyone on her committee is happy. Her average income is $90,000 a year. In other regions, people get by and are happy with an income of $40,000. They should not be comparing apples with oranges.

This motion is important. Once again, it allows us to discuss the type of society we want to live in. I do not believe that this is a partisan issue. As a parliamentarian, I have two jobs. The first is to ensure that I protect the quality of life of my constituents, and the second is to ensure that the bills and motions we debate will improve this quality of life. We must also ensure—at least the opposition must—that we act as watchdog and keep a sharp eye on what happens.

What I liked about the speech given by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and the speeches of other members on this side of the House, is her comment that we all make mistakes. Acknowledging one's mistakes is a wonderful antidote to cynicism.

We pushed the Conservatives on some employment insurance related issues and they backed off. Then they came back and tried to bamboozle us. It is good to realize that everyone makes mistakes sometimes and to be able to grow and prove how much we care about our constituents.

This motion is well written. I do not understand why the government does not want to support it. This is not a war of semantics. The question is simple. The Conservatives need to put themselves in the shoes of the people of the Magdalen Islands and realize that it means something when 4,000 people take to the streets to demonstrate. We sometimes see two or three signs here and there, but when 4,000 people are demonstrating in such a small place, that is a large percentage of the population. This means there is a problem. These people are not crooks. I will refrain from saying anything that I cannot say here.

When I was the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I recall that the members of the Reform Party—because these are former Reform members—always talked to me about immigrants as though they were terrorists. Now they have changed their tune; now it is the seasonal workers in the regions who are crooks. I do not believe that the 4,000 residents of the Magdalen Islands and the people who protested in Charlevoix or the Gaspé are crooks. These are people who have bills and expenses to pay every month. They are being told that it is over and their EI is being cut off. They are falling through the cracks.

Worse still is how this reform is being applied. We know all too well that cheques are slow to arrive. Temporary employees had to be hired again. The time it takes to receive a cheque is creating other problems. Not only are people not getting paid, but when they are, it takes time. It takes more than prayers to put food on the table.

I clearly do not understand. What do we have against our citizens? Why do we treat those people as second class citizens? Some people like to stay in some regions and they manage to survive financially through seasonal work. I do not understand why we treat them as a bunch of crooks.

It is all about respect, and that is why we will support the motion. However, when we have this kind of motion, it is also appropriate for the government to stand and say that it has made a mistake. Sometimes that happens. With all the debate and argument, the government can say that it has made a mistake. It does not have to look at the people like they are nothing.

I am not talking about semantics like wording, clarification or reform. What I care about is to ensure that those individuals who work like crazy will have food on their table, that they will be first class citizens and help their kids to become great citizens.

With all that, if we are not doing it, we are creating another problem, a major social problem in every region. The time has come for the government to wake up.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a quick story about the changes that are happening in my riding of Sudbury and how it is affecting the people.

A young man, 28 years old, was standing outside my office door from 7 a.m. in the cold. It is cold in Sudbury, although it is not always cold. We have nice summers. From November, when he lost the job he had for 10 years, until January he applied for EI and could not get a phone call back. He never received a letter or a notice. He showed up at 7 a.m. because he wanted to be the first person in. He did not know if he could put food on the table for his family that week. He said that he had paid into EI for 10 years and now when he needed it, he did not even know if he would get it. He asked what he should do.

The changes the Conservatives have made to EI are affecting Canadians in this way, and it seems they could not care less.

Would the hon. member comment on that?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I lost a close friend who was also a former colleague, former minister Diane Marleau. I would like to thank the hon. member for Sudbury for paying tribute to her last week. She will be missed. When I think of Sudbury, I think of Diane because she was close to her constituents.

The first thing that parliamentarians, particularly the government, must do is to ensure that we are able to answer people's questions. Our role is to provide a service.

The problem is not just that the reform will have terrible socio-economic effects but also that people do not know whether they are entitled to EI or not, even though they have the right to get answers. I find that unacceptable. It means that we have to fight this reform and work to ensure that Service Canada is able to answer questions and provide this type of service.

I would like to close by speaking about another problem affecting the regions. Services are being cut and offices are being shut down because the government is in the process of centralizing services. This will affect the very definition of a Canadian citizen. We are all first-class citizens.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my friend from Bourassa has to say about social classes.

Since I became an adult, I have been contributing to medicare by paying my taxes, for example. Thankfully, I have been lucky and have not had to use the system.

I find it hard to imagine categorizing people as being frequently sick, occasionally sick or rarely sick for the purposes of medicare. It would never even occur to me.

But what does categorizing people as frequent or occasional workers do but create social classes within Canada?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Trois-Rivières. Solutions must be found. When laws are enacted, they define what type of society we would like to live in.

Mistakes are possible, but what I find unacceptable is when people are deliberately defined and treated in this way and inequitable policies are implemented.

Our role is not to create second-class citizens, but rather to ensure that we can find solutions to injustices and inequities. This reform creates inequities. It will have an impact on social struggles. The middle class does not exist and yet people are saying that those who live in the regions are potential bandits who ought not to have access to employment insurance. That is not the kind of Canada I want.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

Like my NDP colleagues, I wish to stand and condemn this employment insurance reform.

For a government that claims to be strong on economics, it does not appear to have understood how a strong and dynamic economy works. For a sound and stable economy, we need to create good jobs, diversify our areas of expertise and encourage innovation.

At the moment, the Conservatives, rather than concentrate on effective ways to stimulate the economy, seem to be holding a knife to workers’ throats to force them to accept poorly paid, undesirable jobs instead of helping to making these jobs more desirable. It is deplorable.

Not only that, but instead of promoting improvements to people’s standard of living, they have raised the bar even higher, to unheard-of levels. The employment insurance system is part of our economy. It is what gives us a sound and diversified economy. It is precisely this system that makes our tourism industry possible and means that fishers, supply teachers, and forestry, silviculture and farm workers can have jobs.

These jobs contribute enormously to our economy and to the overall quality of life of all Canadians, even those who will never draw benefits in their lives.

For a government that claims to have a strong mandate from the people, it is not listening to them at all.

It needs to be said and it needs to be condemned: never during the election campaign did the Conservatives say that they would slash employment insurance. They spoke about abolishing the Senate and then went on a Senate appointment binge. They spoke about responsible management and spent $1 million on limousine travel and all the orange juice that went along with it. Members know what I am talking about. This is not what people are entitled to expect.

That brings me to the reform. What to say about this reform? Is it the work of a clear-headed and intelligent manager? Hardly. It is a mess for everyone. Even the government will end up a loser at the end of the line.

Historically, the most serious problem with employment insurance is the 42% access rate. In my region, the number of workers paying into EI who will never be able to draw any benefits if anything unfortunate should happen to them will continue to grow. It is a scandal. Instead of attempting to correct the situation, the government is just plundering what remains of employment insurance.

Unfortunately, as we will soon see, the government has vastly misjudged the economic impact of this bad reform, which was inspired by an obsolete ideology and implemented in a rigid and thoughtless way.

This is no joke. Just last year, even the automated call system caused a crisis requiring emergency measures. Can you imagine what this will look like a year from now if this reform is not repealed? It will be hell.

For a government that has never brought down a budget without creating a deficit, it is taking extreme risks. It is a very bad idea to conduct dangerous economic experiments based on a pro-business ideology. These improvised experiments will have disastrous consequences for the lives of many Canadians if immediate action is not taken.

Now I must talk about my region, the kingdom of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. According to a study by a local organization, LASTUSE, and the Mouvement Action Chômage Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean, which work with unemployed workers, 45% of jobs are unstable or seasonal. That is virtually half of all jobs in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. This means that, at any time, 45% of regional workers may need to claim assistance under an insurance system that they pay for and that is essential to our economy.

The Conservatives have failed miserably at creating jobs in my riding, as they have in many regions they have abandoned.

Rather than support workers who often earn their living not knowing what tomorrow holds, rather than offer hope, the Conservatives cause even more misery for those who are being asked to make the biggest effort.

What can we do for workers who have unstable jobs? How will employers retain the expertise of their seasonal skilled workers? What will workers affected by the reform do when the pilot project adding weeks to the employment insurance benefit period in regions with higher unemployment rates is not extended at the end of April?

I really would like an answer. The spring gap is coming, and the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean want answers from the government. They want solutions.

The unemployment rate reached 9.3% in my region in February, whereas it was 7.3% in November. We will clearly be hitting a wall very soon.

The government has to get a grip, admit it was wrong, go back and do its homework and cancel this unfair reform that threatens Canada's economic stability.

It is a disaster for too many Canadian families.

I want to talk about my colleague the Minister of Transport and invite him to do some thinking. As a regional minister, is he still faithfully representing the people in his constituency?

Sometimes I get the impression he is behaving more like the powerless critic of a government with ill-advised policy positions that put Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean at a disadvantage. Or perhaps he is somewhat blind.

As a Conservative member, would the Minister of Transport act the same way if he were still mayor of Roberval?

I have seen some disturbing studies on seasonal workers in my riding. Many people are brush cutters. This is extremely hard work; they work in summer, but not in winter. So these people wind up on unemployment. It would be better to find something for them. We could even send them off to study forest safety or machinery repair; that would improve their living conditions. However, that is not what we do.

Another thing that worries me is that many workers are illiterate. Many people in Quebec still have a hard time reading. Instead of holding a knife to their throats, it would be much better to give them training and help them acquire other trades that would permit them to earn money all year round.

Soon, if everyone works all year round, there will be no more seasonal workers. Workers want to work all year, but their jobs are only seasonal. For a fisher in Gaspé, when the fishery closes and the fish plant shuts down, that is the end.

In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, tourism and agriculture are affected. Here is an example. According to an estimate I found yesterday, one in every 5 workers who does not return to agricultural work represents a loss of $27 million for the country. We know what may follow. The government's actions are irresponsible; it should sit down and work with everyone else.

The hon. member for Bourassa suggested working together in the best interests of the community. That is not what I see here in the House. People are not working for the community; everyone is working for their own interests. I think the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP would be well advised to sit down and try to reach solutions for our constituents. We must not make them any poorer. That is not acceptable.

Today in 2013, beating up on people who are earning $12 or $14 an hour and making as little as $300 a week just does not make sense. They are not the ones abusing the system. If the fund had not been cleaned out in the past, the money would be there to train our people and improve their conditions.

If the government wants to create employment, it must invest money. At present, job creation in my riding stands at zero. There is none. Back home, all we see is the loss of jobs in the paper industry and forestry. It is unacceptable.

As I was saying, the unemployment rate really makes me sick. Here are some figures: in the months of October and November 2012, it was 7.3%; in December it was 8%; and now it is 9.3%. It is unacceptable to have poverty in a country as rich as ours, and unacceptable to beat up on people earning low wages, push them into poverty and send the bill to the provinces. It is unacceptable. I cannot accept it, personally.

I also want to say something about the appeal process. People liked the old process; they could be heard, at least. Now, it is impossible. A written submission has to be made, or none at all. Previously, people could have an advocate and they could speak up. They no longer can.

Earlier, someone mentioned service. The employees of Service Canada are overwhelmed because of the budget cuts. Press 1, press 2, or press 3: your call is important, Mr. Speaker. Get a coffee and sit down, because you will find it a very long process.