Debates of Feb. 5th, 2013

Forestry Industry

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the forestry sector is a key employer for rural communities across Canada. Our Conservative government has taken unprecedented steps to help renew our forestry sector after a damaging recession, and we continue to show that support through our economic action plan by investing an additional $105 million to transform and put this sector on a stable footing.

Would the parliamentary secretary inform this House of more good news about the forestry sector?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George is standing up for his constituents.

The Forest Products Association of Canada has just created a new website looking for job applicants. It estimates it will need to fill 60,000 jobs over the next seven years. This is great news for those rural communities in Canada that were hard hit during the recession.

Our government is proud of the support we have provided that has helped produce a 1,000% increase in Canadian softwood lumber exports to China. Our government will continue to work with hundreds of communities across Canada that depend upon the forestry sector.

Veterans Affairs

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after a long-fought battle with Veterans Affairs, Colonel Neil Russell, a post-Korean War vet, was granted a bed in the veterans' wing of Parkwood Hospital in London, Ontario. Granting that long-term care bed in a veterans' wing sets an important precedent.

The fact is that the government keeps modern-day vets out of long-term care, even when beds are available. That is a disgrace.

Will the Conservatives guarantee beds to all veterans, without forcing them to do battle with their own government?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, actually, there are more than 9,000 veterans who are currently depending on over 1,700 provincial long-term care facilities.

We are there for veterans, especially our Second World War and Korean War veterans. When there were no health systems in this country, we were there for our veterans, and we are still there for them today, in partnership with provinces.

The Environment

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today's report from the environment commissioner is scathing: Ottawa and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Board are ignoring basic safety and environmental requirements and are not prepared for an oil spill.

For two years, the government has not listened to Quebeckers' concerns about the Old Harry oil development project and has ignored the unanimous resolution of Quebec's National Assembly demanding that there be a moratorium on this project, which is located only 80 km from the Magdalen Islands.

Will the government continue to ignore the risks that developing the Old Harry site pose to Quebec coastal communities and suspend all other existing permits?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as is noted in the report, we have taken all of the Commissioner of the Environment's findings into consideration.

As I have mentioned several times today, we have taken several positive steps to ensure the safety in transport of oil, including those actions outlined in our responsible resource development plan, as well as the commission of a risk assessment study on readiness to respond to spills in Canadian waters, which we announced yesterday.

Oral Questions

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just had a chance to review the record of Hansard for last Tuesday.

In the course of an exchange between the member for Winnipeg North, my colleague, and the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, the minister referred to Barbara Jackman, who is an honoree of the Law Society of Upper Canada, a medallist at the Law Society, and has received a doctorate from the Law Society. He referred to Ms. Jackman, who has no means to defend herself in this place or anywhere else, as “a left-wing hack”.

I would like to give the minister the opportunity to withdraw that statement.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to withdraw the word. I did not mean to imply any unethical conduct on Madam Jackman's part. I should have said “a left-wing activist”. There is no shame in that.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties, and I believe you will find the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, during the debate today pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, no quorum calls, requests for unanimous consent or dilatory motions shall be received by the Chair, and any member rising to speak during debate may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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 Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to)

Opposition Motion--Employment Insurance

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will just ask everyone who needs to carry on conversations with their colleagues to do so outside of the chamber.

Before question period, the hon. member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon had just finished his speech and was looking forward to questions and comments. We will take questions and comments now. Resuming debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in this House to respond to the motion from the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and to emphasize at the beginning of this speech, as my colleagues will be emphasizing, that we will not be supporting this motion.

It is unfortunate that, once again, the opposition is attempting not to debate an important government program, a vital government program in need of updating, in need of change, but rather to mislead Canadians.

We on this side are asking ourselves if it is deliberate or whether the opposition simply misunderstands. Having listened to the debate this morning, we fear that it is deliberate. We will take this opportunity to clarify the changes that were made to remind Canadians of the need for these changes. We will focus on what is actually being implemented so that those Canadians with work who fear that one day they might lose their jobs, as many of us do from time to time in our careers, and those without work, will understand these changes and how they could help them return to work more quickly when they need employment insurance.

First, let us look at the big picture, at the overall economic climate.

Our country's economic performance continued to be strong in 2012. In fact, between July 2009 and March 2012, more than 900,000 new jobs were created. That is often mentioned.

However, what is not universally recognized in the country is that this represents by far the strongest employment growth among G-7 countries. Under the Conservative government, Canada has become a driver of job creation among the leading economies of industrialized countries.

A recent feather in our country's economic cap is that the OECD and the IMF have recently provided analysis that offers very encouraging long-term views of the Canadian economy. What they tell us is that, in the coming decades, if we continue to update our current policies, we have every chance—perhaps the best chance in the world—to create hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs for future generations.

When we listen to the opposition, we often lose track of the sectors that have been creating the most jobs in the last three years. In the last 18 months alone, the manufacturing, financial and metal-producing sectors have been among the biggest and strongest job creators in Canada. Despite their best efforts, our partners and our competitors in other countries have much less positive records for their own economies.

Our economic prosperity therefore depends on our ability to meet emerging and growing labour market challenges.

That is why this year's economic action plan continues the hard work of implementing a long-term plan for jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. What does that mean? It means making sure that our capital markets function well, that they are competitive and that we attract capital from around the world. However, let us also make sure that our labour market functions well, that people are able to switch sectors when they have to, and that people requalify or retrain for new jobs when they lose jobs or businesses go bust, as sometimes they do. Let us continue to find the right people with the right experience to fill the skills gap and the labour shortages Canada faces today.

These are not challenges for the future in decades to come. These challenges are affecting us now. If left unchecked, they will hinder our ability to prosper as a country. Chief among these challenges is the growing skills shortage. It is a paradox that is of great concern to our government. We have too many unemployed in Canada, yet we have tens of thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands according to some estimates, going unfilled.

Matching Canadian workers with available jobs in their local area is critical to supporting growth and productivity as well as quality of life for Canadians.

This is what we have always done in our country. The jobs of today are not the jobs our parents or grandparents had 50 years ago or 80 years ago. We have always adapted. We have always changed. We have always moved from the sawmill to the manufacturing plant to the digital software producing enterprise. That is the way the Canadian economy stays strong. This is why our common sense clarifications to EI ensure that the program remains fair and flexible and helps Canadians find jobs in their local labour markets.

What we are trying to do is make the labour market work better. We know that Canadians want to work. At the same time, we know that there are Canadians who are having difficulty finding work, particularly in the off-season in parts of the country that rely on seasonal industries. For those unable to work, we have good news. Employment insurance will continue to be there for them, as it always has been, despite what the opposition alleges. We will say it as often as we need to, inside or outside of the House. Fear-mongering will not work on Canadians.

In many cases, Canadians are not aware of the jobs available in their areas or of what types of jobs are relevant to their skills. That is the key part of this reform: giving Canadians more information. How can the opposition oppose that? We will help connect available workers with suitable work in their local areas.

Starting in January, just last month, we began sending job alerts twice a day to Canadians receiving EI. It is working.

I sat in a taxi the other day and made the driver, a young Canadian, who just finished his Bachelor of Arts and is not working in the field he would like to work in, aware of this website, www.workingincanada.gc.ca. Across the way they should mark it down. It deserves to be checked, especially after 2015. He went on that website, as I sat there, and found three or four jobs in his field, in his area. I do not know if he has taken one of those jobs. He is driving a taxi. It is his choice.

The system works. The information is out there. It is online. We have consolidated it. If people are unemployed and are receiving employment insurance they will receive that information and will be required to look at it and work through it. It is a good thing. It is going to make the labour market work better.

We have also introduced a connection between the EI program and the temporary foreign worker program to ensure that Canadians have first crack at jobs in their local areas. We are all grateful to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Multiculturalism for his efforts in this area.

However, we also recognize that in many areas of the country there are legitimate labour shortages that are threatening our economic recovery. I can tell the House, from personal experience, that there are many areas experiencing chronic labour shortages in skilled and low-skilled occupations. Therefore, in addition to providing more information to Canadians on local jobs, we have also clarified what constitutes suitable employment and a reasonable job search. This is assisting Canadians currently collecting EI benefits in understanding their responsibilities while on claim.

Better utilizing Canada's workforce and making Canada's labour market more adaptable will help ensure our long-term economic growth.

To be clear, it has always been a requirement of the EI program that Canadians be looking for work while receiving benefits. We understand that every region of our country is different, with varying levels of economic opportunity, depending on the season and the business cycle. It has changed from decade to decade, from century to century, throughout our history. We also know that every individual has unique circumstances, and we will also take these into account. We are not asking EI claimants to uproot their families to find work in another part of the country or even another part of the province. We are not asking them to work at jobs that are far below their skill level. We are not forcing people to accept low wages or bad working conditions.

If one looks at GDP per capita in the country over the last six or seven years, while our government has been in office, it has gone up. The Gini coefficient income disparities are not deteriorating, as they are in other parts of the world. They are actually holding steady and are improving in some areas. We are creating opportunities. We are lifting people up to higher levels of opportunity and to a higher quality of life. We are not forcing people to accept low wages. If they cannot find work, EI will be there for them, as it always has been. What these changes are doing is ensuring that every EI claimant will be better off working than not working. The fact is, Canadians collecting EI have to look for work.

The extra-five-weeks pilot program was created in 2008 and extended in 2010. It was always meant to be a temporary measure to support Canadians through the worst of the recession. Once economic conditions began to return to normal, the pilot was allowed to lapse. In fact, in a couple of regions covered by the pilot, it was ended early, because they had 12 continuous months of unemployment below 8%. One of the regions in the pilot had almost 5% unemployment for a significant period of time, so we took account of that.

We will continue to forge ahead with policies that matter to Canadians, focusing on their priorities, which are jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and, especially in the case of today's motion, a better functioning and more responsive labour market.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question about the specific case of on-call workers, particularly hospital orderlies.

These workers often replace employees on vacation in the summer. If they want to work, then they have to take whatever shifts are available here and there . In the winter, the people with regular positions take all the shifts. So there is a work shortage. But the on-call workers continue to have an employment relationship with their employer while receiving employment insurance benefits.

The logic of the labour market means that these people would receive employment insurance benefits for three or four years. They would then have accumulated enough seniority to never need it again. If they are forced to accept another job, no orderly would ever have enough seniority to get a full-time position.

Will these people who work on call in hospitals be forced to accept a job elsewhere?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will never force anyone who already has a job to accept another one. If a person is receiving employment insurance, that person is required to find employment.

If there are no opportunities other than seasonal employment, the person will be required to accept that job.

It all depends on the economic conditions of each region and the experience of the person in question. A nurse will not be forced to work as a machinist. Conditions will have to be set for each sector and each region.

The changes we are making are not revolutionary. They are improvements. We are providing information. We want people to be aware of the opportunities in their region.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the words of the member for Ajax—Pickering and they sounded awfully familiar to ones I heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development last week. Did they all come off the same word processor?

In any event, the he said that people were better off working than not working. That is absolutely true. I have no disagreement with that.

However, the fact is that the changes the government has made to employment insurance are penalizing people in areas where there is not full-time or three-quarter time work available. They are penalizing them for taking a day's work because they are drawing back half their wages from what used to be the case. Farmers are having trouble getting people to work for a day because if they work for a day, then they are getting half their money clawed back.

I see the parliamentary secretary walking across to whisper in the member's ear. Does she want to answer the question for him, or is the member for Ajax—Pickering going to answer the question himself?

This system is penalizing people for taking work. It is punitive and it hurts seasonal industries.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was just checking with several of my colleagues because the hon. member for Malpeque has asked exactly this question on several occasions. He has had precisely the answer I am about to give him because it is the truth.

The answer is the person can stick with the current system, as it works, or the revised system, which we think has advantages for many unemployed Canadians and will help them find new work.

The real question is this. How can the member for Malpeque and all members in his party and the NDP characterize the changes we are making as an attack on the unemployed and working Canadians, when in fact it is the exact opposite? It is an effort to give them information about jobs that exist in their region, to help them find out what skills they should acquire to get a better job, to get a second job if they want to have two part-time jobs, which is absolutely possible, to put people back to work.

The member opposite would have us sit with an unchanged system, reflecting the reality of the past. That is never the way Canada has moved forward and he knows it.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Today I rise in the House to speak in support of the motion tabled by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who is the NDP employment insurance critic.

A number of my colleagues representing different parts of Quebec and Canada will be speaking to this motion today. I would like to join them today in underscoring the devastating effects of the Conservative government’s EI reforms on the Montreal area.

Since the cuts announced by the Conservatives took effect last month, I have received hundreds of comments from my constituents in Hochelaga. They deplore these measures that jeopardize the welfare of their community, which has already been hard hit by unemployment and announcements of plant closures.

Over the next two years, hundreds more well-paying jobs will be lost, especially when the Mabe plant is shuttered.

What does the minister intend to tell these specialized, well-paid workers in East Montreal? To leave Montreal for a job in Fort McMurray? To accept a job at Tim Hortons?

The changes to the Employment Insurance Act fail to take into account the realities of regional labour markets and seasonal industries and adversely affect workers and communities.

Although there are not as many such workers in my riding as there are in eastern and northern Quebec ridings, Hochelaga has its share of bus drivers, substitute teachers, construction workers, daycare workers and botanical garden employees who work seasonally and who, as frequent EI claimants, will be affected by the Conservative reforms.

Montreal is also home to a large number of tourism industry and museum workers. I know something about this. They will be labelled frequent EI claimants and suffer the resulting consequences.

These workers, who typically claimed three times as many EI benefits and received these benefits for more than 60 weeks over the past five years, will have to look for similar work that pays 80% of their previous wage. Once they have received EI benefits for six weeks, they will have to accept any job for which they are qualified and that pays 70% of their previous wage.

Even though the reforms are mostly aimed at frequent claimants, all workers will be affected.

By forcing all unemployed persons to accept a lower-paying job than their previous one, the government is putting downward pressure on wages, something that will adversely affect the country’s economy as a whole. By forcing unemployed workers to accept jobs far from home, the Conservatives are asking them to choose between travelling a long way to work or losing their benefits.

Asking a person who is unemployed and who cannot afford a car to buy a vehicle in order to travel to a job a long way from home and to accept a pay cut to boot defies logic.

The real problem is that there are not enough jobs.

As recently as yesterday, in response to a question from my colleague from Parkdale—High Park about the widening social inequality gap and our government’s poor record on fighting poverty, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development had this to say:

...the best way to fight poverty is to create jobs and to have skilled people fill these jobs.

Government ministers should really avoid making statements of this nature just to hide their own incompetence. In actual fact, 300,000 more people in Canada are out of work today than during the 2008 recession.

The Conservatives would have us believe that they have created countless new jobs, but the facts speak for themselves. Today, there are over 1.4 million unemployed Canadians for approximately 270,000 available jobs, or five unemployed workers for every available job.

Overall, 14.1% of Canadians between the ages of 15 and 25 are unemployed. Currently, only four out of every ten unemployed workers receive EI benefits. The numbers are at a historic low. The situation is worse than it was under the Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin governments, the uncontested champions when it came to wreaking havoc on the EI system and plundering the EI fund. The situation is truly unacceptable.

Whatever the minister would have us believe about the changes introduced by the Conservatives in their mammoth bill, we need to be clear about one thing: tightening EI eligibility rules and forcing workers to accept any job, be it one in another geographical area or one that pays less than their previous wage, is what she calls EI reform.

As if that were not enough, we learned just last Friday, February 1, that Service Canada inspectors must now meet EI cost-saving quotas.

Last Friday, I put a question to the Minister of Human Resources in the House and reminded her that Service Canada employees are supposed to help claimants, not track them like criminals. All the minister had to say in response to my question was this:

...as for the EI system, it is very important to note that, once again, the NDP is supporting the bad guys.

So then, if I understood the minister correctly, when the NDP asks her to stop treating unemployed workers like criminals and characterizing them as fraudsters in order to find savings at their expense and at the expense of their families by giving Service Canada inspectors quotas to meet, the only response she has is that the NDP is supporting the bad guys.

I would therefore like to remind the minister at this time that the NDP will always be there to defend Canadian families and to oppose Conservative policies that, by destroying the country’s social safety net, hurt more people than they help.

The minister’s response shows the arrogance of the Conservatives and the government’s lack of respect for the unemployed and for workers. Their punitive reforms clearly reflect the negative, stereotypical view the Conservatives have of EI recipients.

And there is more. When asked by reporters about the fraud penalty quotas given to Service Canada inspectors, the minister replied that there were no quotas as such, but rather targets. Does anyone here in the House really see a difference between a quota and a cost-saving target? I thought about this all weekend long and I really do not see any difference. It is merely a question of semantics.

Another worrisome trend that we have observed with this government is the off-loading of costs onto the provinces. Even though the federal government is responsible for employment insurance, last-resort compensation programs fall under provincial jurisdiction.

So what happens when the federal government restricts EI eligibility by imposing unreasonable conditions on EI recipients who want to keep their benefits and by giving Service Canada inspectors quotas to meet? Well, the provinces ultimately end up having to pick up the tab.

After its omnibus bill on Criminal Code reform and its refusal to pledge to renew long-term agreements for social housing, the government is now refusing to compensate people for the unemployment it has created, sticking the provinces with the bill.

I cannot say it enough: employment insurance is insurance, and workers must be able to turn to it if they lose their jobs. It is a social safety net that workers and companies have paid into. The money in the employment insurance fund is not the government's money.

I encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of the motion of my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and I hope the government will finally listen to reason regarding its management of this file. Otherwise, the NDP will cancel these callous reforms imposed by the Conservative government when it leaves the Conservatives unemployed in 2015.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is well aware that should Canadians be unable to find work in their local area that EI will continue to be there for them, as it always has been. Why does the member opposite continue to fearmonger on the issues when she knows full well that if individuals cannot find work, they will continue to receive EI?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a basic principle that the Conservatives do not seem to understand.

First, not everyone can find full-time work. Second, when someone is looking for part-time work, it is sometimes difficult to find anything else.

Let us take the example of the museum where I worked for a long time. Of about 20 guides, 17 worked part-time. It was not because they did not want full-time work, but because full-time work was not available for 20 guides because the work depended on youth visits. So they worked on call.

These guides received 35 hours of training. When new guides are hired, they must undergo the 35 hours of training. That costs the employer a lot. When the guide does not work—when the young people do not visit, for example—the guide must resort to employment insurance to make ends meet. So the guide becomes a frequent claimant and will be penalized by being required to accept another job at 70%—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to interrupt the honourable member because other members wish to ask questions.

The honourable member for Winnipeg–North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are literally hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians from all communities in our country who want to work. There is a lot of attention paid to the high rates of unemployed youth. However, there is a special category that I think is underestimated in terms of the hardships they go through, and that is unemployed individuals in the 50 to 60 age bracket, who find themselves trying to get a job that is somewhat of equal value to the one they had.

Would the member not agree that these people, for the simple reason that their need to provide is far greater, are often paying the greatest price when they are not able to get their cheques in a timely fashion because of processing times or when they are encouraged to leave their community, when there are no jobs within their skill sets, because the government insists that they have to go to place X to get a job?