Debates of Feb. 25th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I go back to what I said earlier. The NDP already knows that is a commitment we made in the last platform, that in fact we are moving toward a structure in 2017 where the government will not be able to use those funds in its general revenue. Everyone in this place knows that, but the NDP pretends it somehow never happened. That is a commitment we have made very clearly. The minister has made it. The parliamentary secretary has made it. We on this side have all made it.

I do agree with the member that there are some components of the motion that are good. That is important. One of the things I do not like about the present structure is the way the training structure works. I hope in the larger review, we will look at how the training process works for those skilled trades people who are doing apprenticeships and things like that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear that the Liberals will also not be supporting the motion.

My colleague from Kenora was mentioning earlier in his speech about one of the big issues we have, which is that we are forcing Canadians to leave and go to find employment somewhere else in a lower-paying job. However, the key to that statement is that they are employed. What we are really trying to seek here is to take people off EI and make sure they get a job.

When I was 17 years old, I left Saskatchewan, which was under an NDP government and went to Alberta, which was under a Conservative government, to find a job. That is what we do. We go and find jobs where they are.

I would like to ask my colleague why he sees keeping unemployed people on social assistance for long term as an issue, when the key should be trying to find them another job.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is the issue with the Conservatives. They think we should uproot a whole family for a job that is minimum wage or just above minimum wage. Imagine saying that to a family that is on EI, that has been structured and working in seasonal employment. That was what the Conservatives were trying to accomplish until everyone figured it out, and that is why they are over there.

The reality is that we do not move a whole family for a low-paying job. If individuals can get a job that pays a high wage, then in fact they will make that move. The problem with the Conservatives' program was they were trying to make people who were on seasonal employment move for low-paying jobs, and move their whole family, when in fact that would not work.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that, if they want to ask further questions, all they have to do is stand up and try to be recognized.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kenora talked about his region and the high unemployment rate, but I know his region is like a lot of Canada. There is a lot of diversity in the country. In his area, there are certainly a lot of seasonal industries, such as mining, tourism, and other such industries. I wonder if he could spell out to the House how important the changes that the Liberal government is proposing are to the seasonal industries and their health and prosperity in our country.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, these changes and the larger review will allow us to look at the productivity and the opportunities that regions like mine have. We are a successful mining region. In the past, we have been successful in forestry, and we will be again once we move to new products and new structures. Therefore, this analysis and the work being done by the minister responsible will give us the opportunity to see how the new jobs in the future will be developed through the training and through the role we have with the provinces and the territories. That is why we are excited to see these changes coming forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for North Island—Powell River.

While it is an honour to rise in the House today in support of this motion, I cannot say that I am happy; rather, I am concerned, disheartened, and angered by the repeated abuse and neglect of our employment insurance program, which is one of Canada's key social programs, a cornerstone of our social democracy, and an important part of our social safety net. That abuse and neglect makes this motion brought forward by the member for Jonquière very necessary.

We have experienced nothing but lip service and empty promises on the part of Liberal and Conservative governments who conveniently forget their promises as soon as they are in power, by restricting access to benefits for vulnerable Canadians and using the funds, built from the premiums of workers and employers, like a cookie jar that they can raid in order to continue corporate pandering and give the illusion of a balanced budget.

Let me remind members of the proud social democratic roots that are the foundation of our country, the foundation of programs like employment insurance in Canada, which were created to ensure fairness, equity, and that no one is left behind.

A social democratic society provides balance in a capitalist economy with the recognition that some core values, such as access to decent employment, health care, affordable housing, education, pensions, food, and union representation, among others, are not commodities to be marketed away at the whim of the corporate or government elites.

It was a Canadian, John Humphrey, who drafted the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948. It is a declaration that was subsequently enshrined in international law in 1976. I should add that it is a law that was and is endorsed by every province in this country.

In his autobiography, Humphrey was clear about the centrality of social and economic rights to the lives of ordinary people, and he stressed that other human rights have no meaning without them. This is the proud legacy we hold as Canadians; and the foundation of institutions, such as our employment insurance program, was created in the spirit of that legacy. We must not let the government tell us it cannot be done.

In a lecture on the future of social democracy by the Hon. Ed Broadbent in November 2015, he pointed out that the most stable and robust economy that the U.S. has ever experienced was in the 1960s, a period in which social programs were strongest in that country. When we think about it, this is truly what trickle-down economics should be, because that economic stability, a period in which the U.S. GDP was strongest, was the result of progressive policies and social programs implemented by Franklin Delano Roosevelt following the Great Depression and World War II.

Equal societies improve outcomes for everyone. A strong EI system in Canada not only benefits those whose employment has been interrupted, but it benefits dependent family members and children who are able to remain well fed, clothed, and adequately housed. It benefits the local economies, because even unemployed workers have money to spend in their community.

Our motion today calls upon the government to honour its campaign promises and throne speech commitment to strengthen the employment insurance system by taking immediate action to do the following: one, create a universal qualifying threshold of 360 hours for employment insurance, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment; two, immediately repeal the harmful reforms of the previous government, including those that force unemployed workers to move away from their community and take lower paying jobs, and those that eliminated the extended EI benefits pilot program to help seasonal workers; and three, protect the employment insurance account to ensure that the funds are only spent on benefits for Canadians, including training, and are never again used to boost the government's bottom line. We certainly saw that from the Conservatives and the Liberals.

In my community of London, Ontario, the unemployment rate is 5.8%. This is a bit of good news for a region that has been very hard hit in the last five years, but we cannot forget that this region has long been hard hit by the loss of well-paid and stable manufacturing jobs as a result of government's historical refusal to insulate our economy from globalization. It is becoming harder and harder for those who have not found a stable, lasting job to get help when they need it.

Currently in London, workers need a staggering 700 hours to qualify for employment insurance benefits. That amounts to more than four consecutive months of full-time work. Sadly, in a world where precarious, temporary or short-term contract jobs dominate the job market, many people find themselves in jobs that only last 90 days, leaving workers a full month short of eligibility for EI.

Let me tell the House about the situation faced by one of my constituents. Steve completed his training program last year, having returned to school to retrain as a machine operator. He successfully secured an apprenticeship and put his new-found skills to work over the summer and through the fall. He was laid off recently and did not qualify for unemployment because he fell 17 hours short of qualifying for EI benefits. Steve has always been a hard worker. He contributes to society. He pays his taxes. Now, as he has been unable to find any sort of job, he is left to live on social assistance of $590 a month, much less than he would have been eligible for on employment insurance.

Steve is an example of why we need a 360-hour eligibility standard. If Steve is lucky enough to locate work, there is a good chance in today's economy that it will be a low-wage, temporary, or contract job. Even apprenticeships are precarious and all the retraining possible does not help workers who have taken the initiative to retrain themselves but remain ineligible for EI.

Another constituent, Chris Gerrits, wants this House to know about his wife whose employment was interrupted because she required two major surgeries in the past year. She went back to work between surgeries, and as a result, has been left without an income since August because she was not able to work enough hours between surgeries to qualify for further benefits.

These people are contributing to the EI program. In both cases they have contributed for many, many years before needing to turn to EI for help, only to find that the help was not there when it was needed. These are the people our current system is failing, and this is the reason we stand here today in this House calling for reform.

The sad reality for Canadian workers today is the erosion of full-time, permanent, and well-paid work, and the need for people to work two, three, even four jobs in order to make ends meet. More and more Canadians must contend with precarious work conditions because our market cannot or will not provide better. We cannot ignore the fact that an intersectional analysis of this phenomenon reveals that subsections of workers, such as women, young people, seniors, immigrants, indigenous people, and disabled people are most vulnerable to the effects of precarious work.

According to the parliamentary budget officer, many Canadians who are not receiving EI have been unemployed for more than a year or were employed in precarious work that made it difficult for them to accumulate enough hours to qualify.

The New Democratic Party of Canada believes that higher levels of employment, gender and economic equality, social rights, civil liberties, and environmental economic sustainability can be achieved in this system where government plays a major role. That role is to strengthen social programs, ensuring their sustainability in order to fuel a thriving, robust economy.

Sadly, the legacy of Liberal and Conservative governments has been to weaken social programs such EI. The systemic disregard of previous governments also ignores the reality that social programs provide infrastructure for a healthy economy. We have seen Liberals and Conservatives drastically slash access to employment insurance, leaving a majority of Canadians without benefits. This is simply not acceptable.

I hope this new government is listening and is ready to act instead of giving old promises. I have seen promises. I remember red books in the past.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on her speech.

I had the opportunity to meet some of her constituents a few years ago. She is talking today and I would like people to listen to what we have to say because this is a really important issue.

People who are getting employment insurance benefits are already having problems. Imagine those who are waiting to get them. The number of people waiting for benefits right now is staggering. It does not make any sense that they all contributed to a program that they do not have access to.

When my colleague speaks about people, she refers to them by name because she knows them. I know how close this member is to her constituents.

Does she not find it appalling to see the cynicism of members who are saying that, of course, we need to reform the system, when in reality we all know that the Liberals signal left during elections and then turn right once they take office? They have been doing that for a long time. Is that not true?

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

Madam Speaker, when I talk about the fact that I remember Liberal promises of the past, I remember the red books of 1993, 1997, 2000, and 2003. The Liberals promised all kinds of things. In 1997, they promised that pharmacare was going to exist by January of 1998. They promised child care. They promised all kinds of supports for workers, and they never delivered.

I have this very terrible feeling that as this budget unfolds, we are going to see a pulling back, like we saw in the 13 years of Liberal government, a pulling back from the promises that Canadians depended on and believed in. As my colleague says, they signal left and then turn right.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, as the representative of London West, I agree that people are suffering. They are hurting and struggling, and changes need to be made.

This government is working to fulfill commitments made in the campaign and in the Speech from the Throne on employment insurance. It is being reviewed and changes are coming very soon, as the Prime Minister has stated many times in the House of Commons and as I state again today.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to tell a story, which I perhaps have told before. In 1997, then prime minister Jean Chrétien gave a speech at a $250-a-plate luncheon to those very well placed in society, such as business corporations and those in the industry sector. He said, “You have slain the deficit. You are wonderful, you have slain the deficit that this country had.” That was not quite true. The deficit was certainly lower, but it was not that bunch who slew it, it was the workers of this country, because $54 billion was stolen from the employment insurance account that those workers and employers had diligently put aside so that workers could benefit.

I have some concerns and this motion is absolutely directed toward the government. We are saying it should live up to its obligations and help the people of this country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that she cannot, directly or indirectly, use the word “stolen”. I would ask her to be very careful when using that language in the House. No one can be accused of stealing something.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I applaud the motion moved by my NDP colleagues because the Bloc Québécois has been advocating for years for the EI fund to be independent and for it to no longer be used to increase government revenue. I know my colleagues agree with that position.

One of the members who spoke earlier talked a lot about Liberal promises. However, one promise that the NDP made during the election campaign is that it would take $7 billion from the employment insurance fund.

Am I to take the party's change in position as an official apology to unemployed workers?

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

Madam Speaker, we in the NDP stand by what we believe is going to be the solution for this situation.

In terms of the government acquiring $54 billion by the Liberals and $3 billion by the Conservatives, this money is owed to workers, and we would like to see it returned.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to stand here in this House to talk about this very important motion. I would like to thank my colleague for bringing the motion forward.

This is an important issue across Canada and in my riding. It is about fairness and equity for members of all of our communities when facing the challenges of a changing economy. For this reason, I am very happy to speak in support of this motion.

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, we have faced multiple hits to our economy. With a large resource-based economy, the jobs have changed, and this has increased the mobility of our communities. Many people have to travel far away for work while leaving their families in our region. With the lack of flexibility of accessing EI, the stress on families has increased, leaving them struggling financially or forced to travel great distances for work.

EI should be a tool for people to use when work ends, to support new training to find work in their community, and to stop the growth of poverty during hard times, thus providing families with the security they need to move forward toward a positive outcome.

Before the Liberals desecrated the then unemployment insurance benefits program, over 80% of unemployed Canadians received support. After the Liberal reforms, cover fell to less than 50% of those same Canadians. This was tremendously hard for the people in my riding.

The people in my riding work hard and are proud of the work that they do. They are committed to their communities and work hard to remain there. This means taking work as it comes. In such a beautiful riding, tourism is a large part of this economy. However, with this sector, often seasonal work is a reality.

Now these hard-working people are faced with increased pressures. Some are left with just under the amount of hours required to be eligible for EI. Some are working jobs that do not pay well, and when they are left waiting for EI to start, face serious concerns with paying their everyday bills. People should not have to lose their homes or power, or go without food because they are waiting too long for the resources they require.

Then, in 2013, the Conservatives introduced harmful reforms that had long-term impacts on our communities. Seasonal workers have limited opportunities for short-term work when it is out of their normal work season. Working while on a claim has also been dangerously changed to limit flexibility for families.

Low-income workers used to be protected and be able to earn an amount to keep their families from poverty. This meant that families could survive, and people were encouraged to work and continue to build their networks for future opportunities. Once the Conservatives changed the rules to have workers able to keep only 50% of their income, across the low- to high-income earners, low-income workers were penalized and higher-income earners were able to make more. This is shameful.

Low-income earners are getting further and further behind, and people are struggling. Negative outcomes on health, well-being, and stability are increasing. People are asking for help and need to be treated with respect during these hard times, not treated as if they are less than.

The Conservatives added to this, and fewer than four out of 10 unemployed Canadians were receiving regular EI benefits. The tool was largely destroyed, and the protection for Canadians during hard times continued to be reduced. No wonder income inequality is growing and Canadians are struggling to make ends meet.

In my riding, I received complaints about the accessibility of EI: the lack of a voice on the other end of the phone to support them while filling out forms; a lack of information to make informed decisions to support their next steps when their work ends; families unable to feed their children because of the long wait times; and as one constituent said to me, “I am made to feel like a person begging for a handout rather a person who has paid into the EI system for years and now needs help”. This is simply not right. Immediate change is required.

The number of insured hours workers have to log before they qualify for EI benefits has sharply increased in the past years. The qualifying period is one of the major contributors in terms of limiting access for workers on this account. Today, the number of hours based on the regional rate of unemployment in an EI claimant's region can vary between 420 to 700 hours in the preceding 52 weeks before they make a claim.

In my region, the number of insured hours required to qualify for regular benefits is 560. This is simply too many.

According to the parliamentary budget officer, many of the Canadians who are not receiving EI have been unemployed for more than a year, or were employed in precarious work that made it difficult for them to accumulate enough hours. Instead of ostracizing workers, the NDP has proposed a threshold of 360 hours for workers regardless of where they live. The 360-hour threshold has been endorsed by 80 Canadian groups, including labour unions, anti-poverty groups, student groups, and women's groups. This includes the Canadian Labour Congress, Unifor, and the Vancouver and District Labour Council. Based on the NDP's calculations during the campaign, the cost of this proposal would be affordable.

The government committed to strengthening the employment insurance system by eliminating the new entrant and re-entrant rule. The Liberal government needs to honour this campaign promise. In today's job market, new entrants and re-entrants need 910 hours to qualify for EI regular benefits.

The government also needs to take immediate action to protect the EI account, so that the premiums Canadians pay are only used for benefits and for training. Employers' and workers' premiums should never be reallocated to general revenue. Yet, this is exactly what has happened. According to Justice Louis LeBel, employment insurance was effectively transformed from a regulatory scheme into a payroll tax. The Liberals spent $54 billion of EI premiums on various programs and tax cuts for corporations, with no strings attached.

When the Conservatives came into power, they picked up where the Liberals left off and diverted another $3 billion from the EI account. Then they made the theft official by closing the old EI account and wiping out the accumulated balance. In 2015, the Conservatives continued with this plan by using the EI account surplus to give benefits to wealthy Canadians instead of improving access to benefits. Workers saw it for what it was. As Jack Layton said, it was the biggest theft in Canadian history.

This needs to be stopped. Will the government take a principled approach and never treat the EI account like a government slush fund? Canada's precarious labour market is resulting in more and more unemployed people being left out in the cold. Let us not continue this Robin Hood in reverse scheme.

Let us look at another of the pilot projects that the Conservatives cut, the extended EI benefits pilot. This provided the addition of five weeks of EI benefits in regions where there was high unemployment. Without this pilot program, seasonal workers like the ones in my riding, no longer have the income to fill this gap. In 2010-11, some 313,000 workers benefited from the extended EI benefits. Today, this is having a real impact on rural communities. The Liberals promised during the election campaign to repeal all of the Conservatives' 2012 reforms, but their costing did not include the EI extended benefits pilot program. Will they confirm this funding?

The government needs to act swiftly during these hard times to support communities and families in accessing EI in order to prevent growing income inequality. EI is a tool, a savings to provide people a hand when they need it, a tool that allows people to have a sense of stability during times of economic change. This is why I encourage all members to support this motion.

This motion would make a difference for Canadians as we go through these trying times. It is a practical solution for all. Today, we are trying to deal with the most urgently needed changes. I hope we will stand together in this House in support of this motion and all Canadian workers.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed most of the member's remarks. In fact, I agree with a lot of the motion that is before us. However, there is a glaring problem, and that relates to the 360 hours being universal.

The member said in her speech that the 360 hours, according to the NDP, is affordable. I looked everywhere for the calculations behind the cost to the system of that 360 hours. Will it mean increased premiums? What will it mean?

The member opposite claims it is affordable. Could she give the exact cost figure for what the 360 hours would mean to the system as a whole?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that we are entering a time of increasingly precarious work. Short-term work and part-time work are increasing, and families are struggling. They have to work two or three jobs, up and down, all over the place. When we look at a number like 360 hours, this is about giving a hand to those families who are facing those challenges. It is making sure that they get the things they need. It is affordable, in the sense that it will support those families to move toward their goals and have a positive family life.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the debate all day, and I keep hearing the same thing over and over. I want to remind all members of the House that EI is meant as a temporary measure to overcome circumstances. What Canadians want most is employment. They want to work. They do not want to be on EI.

The way that the NDP motion reads, it says that for 360 hours, which is a short period of time, people can collect employment insurance for 50 weeks a year. What people want to do is to work for 50 weeks a year. They do not want to collect employment insurance.

I ask the hon. member to provide us with a jobs plan. Provide us with some ideas on how we can get Canadians working, as opposed to putting them permanently on EI, as the NDP would propose with this motion.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that it is offensive to the people in my riding to assume that people would work for a short period of time just to happily sit on EI. The people I represent are hard-working people. They want to work. They want to get out there and do good things in their communities.

The plan is about supporting people when they need a hand-up; it is not about creating a handout.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

As an MP currently serving a second term, I would like to tell her how disappointed I am to hear the Conservatives attempting to tell us how to increase job opportunities. When they were reforming employment insurance in the Maritimes and other places where seasonal work is a fact of life, they had no ideas for extending the season. They never made any constructive proposals. All they did was punish people who needed employment insurance. That is scandalous.

I would like to hear her comments on that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question. This is my first term, but I thank him for thinking I am doing such a good job. It feels like I have been here for a while longer.

For my community, one of the biggest hardships has been the forestry industry and the changes around manufacturing. It is seeing all of those raw logs floating from our communities and we are not able to process them. All those people who were proud workers are no longer able to do their jobs.

We did see a huge decrease of jobs in our riding during the Conservatives time in government, and we were faced with multiple challenges. We continue to strive. I look forward to seeing jobs increase across this country for the hard-working people of Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Jonquière, Canada Post; the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, Taxation; the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, Fisheries and Oceans.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak against the NDP motion. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Carleton.

I listened to a lot of the debate today, and there are a few things that concern me with the NDP motion. Top of mind is asking Canadians to subsidize a 45-day work year. This is irresponsible and unsustainable. I have not heard in any of their speeches how much this would cost the Canadian taxpayer and how it would be sustainable long term.

Before I get into talking about some of the concerns that I have with the NDP motion, I would also like to highlight that the motion would repeal a lot of the good work that the previous Conservative government was able to achieve. I want to highlight some of that. For example, after we came into power in 2006, we emerged from the great recession with the strongest economy in the G7. We created 1.2 million net new jobs. That is 20% higher than most of our G7 counterparts. Those were incredible achievements. It is a little frustrating when I hear that the NDP wants to negate some of those great successes under our Conservative government. Our Conservative plan was working, and it worked.

We focused on something that has not come from the NDP members, or some of my Liberal colleagues on the other side either. One of the most important aspects of employment insurance is creating jobs and having policies in place where employers and Canadian businesses can grow and create jobs. That is what we should be focusing on, not making it easier for people to go on long-term EI. That is not what Canadians want. They do not want a handout. They do not want to have a disincentive to work. They want to have jobs. That is the element that is missing from a lot of the debate here today.

For example, I want to go over a couple of the projects that we did as a Conservative government that were incredibly successful. We introduced pro-growth measures, such as the largest infrastructure plan in Canadian history. We legislated the federal gas tax and the infrastructure investment program. This gave municipalities long-term stable funding for the first time in Canadian history. We had more paid internships for recent graduates. We cut red tape for small businesses. We ensured that EI premiums were low for Canadian business owners, so they could invest in innovation and grow their business. When they grow their business that means they create jobs.

One of the concerns I have with the 45-day work year is that also increases costs on business owners. That is one thing we have not talked a lot about here today, the impact that this would have on business owners. This is in a time when our Liberal government is talking about increasing the CPP tax on businesses, following the model of a very dangerous provincial Liberal plan. It is also talking about a federal carbon tax. We would be adding yet another tax to our Canadian businesses. That cuts into funds available to a business owner to invest in his own company. What happens when he invests in his own company? It grows. What happens when a business grows? It creates jobs. That is the fundamental thing that we should be focusing on.

We were also focused on a few other things that helped Canadians, such as keeping taxes low. We cut taxes 160 times. That resulted in the lowest tax burden on Canadian families in 50 years. That is something that gets overlooked. What happens when we have low taxes? We have a strong economy. If we have a strong economy, we are creating jobs and less of a burden on the employment insurance system.

We made changes in 2013 to the employment insurance program. We focused on job creation and removing disincentives to work, while at the same time supporting unemployed Canadians in helping them match workers to jobs.

One of the programs the Conservatives implemented last year in economic action plan 2015 was the Canadian apprenticeship loan program. That is really where we should be investing taxpayer money, so that when there are problems in the employment sector, investments and programs are available for retraining and getting the unemployed back to work, with programs like the apprenticeship loan program.

Last year, after speaking to men and women across the country, we heard that more than 50% of those who had entered apprenticeship programs had been unable to finish these due to financial constraints, such as paying mortgages and putting groceries on the table, when they were in training programs as part of their apprenticeship. As part of the apprenticeship loan program, we provided a $4,000 interest-free loan for every term in the program. That was widely applauded by the trades sector, many schools, and those who were looking to learn a trade. It got people back into the workforce or, for those who were in the workforce, it allowed them to better their situations and get higher-paying jobs.

Last year, in a study, for example, on getting women into the skilled trades, we heard that women who went from, let us say, a sociology or psychology career—not that there is anything wrong with that, but sometimes it is difficult to find jobs in that sector, especially in Alberta at that time—into highly skilled trades, such as welding, heavy-duty mechanics, truck driving, after going through these apprenticeship programs, saw an average salary in the six figures, or $120,000 a year or more. The programs that the Conservatives put in place for people to train and find better opportunities were not for minimum-wage jobs.

What this really comes down to is that Canadians do not want handouts; they want jobs. What we should be focusing on is putting policies and structures in place to provide people with the best opportunities to find jobs. We must have a social safety net in place when people lose their jobs, but, as we have heard from my colleagues today, the safety net is a temporary solution. Employment insurance is not intended to be a long-term fact of life. Unfortunately, the NDP opposition day motion is a disincentive to work. If I have to work only a 45-day work year and I know I am going to get a year of employment insurance, I am not sure how hard I will look for a job.

We have also heard from both sides of the House, the Liberals and NDP, that for some reason it is a hardship when people sometimes have to move to find jobs. The key to that statement is finding a job. That is the most important part: finding a job. Certainly, people may have to move. As I said earlier, I left Saskatchewan when I was a young man and went to Alberta to find a job. That is what many thousands of Canadians have done over the years.

Look at Alberta. This has been talked about a bit today. Alberta companies have had people from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador arriving on a regular basis. Why are they going there? It is because there are jobs there. They go home when there are breaks in the season. When there are breaks in the oil industry, they will go back to their homes in the Maritimes and Atlantic Canada, and when they go back to Alberta, there are jobs.

We also heard from New Democrats today that they are very concerned that without these programs in place, people who are unemployed will lose those skills. In Alberta right now, with the downturn and 125,000 Albertans who have lost their jobs, there is a real concern that they will go back to Atlantic Canada and never return. I do not think the argument is valid that they will not have the skills. The best option is to find jobs for the people of Atlantic Canada so they can continue to work and not have to collect EI.

New Democrats are claiming that this motion would strengthen the employment insurance program. A 45-day work year is asking Canadian taxpayers to subsidize employment insurance for the other 320 days of the year. I do not find that to be sustainable in any way. I would like NDP members to tell me how much it would cost. What is comes down to is that the Conservatives made a real effort to create jobs. That was our plan, and we did it.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

In my riding, Jonquière, there are a lot of seasonal industries and workers who have a hard time making ends meet during the off-season. Many of our communities are remote and small, and they depend on regional economies in which a single industry, such as forestry, is sometimes the only source of jobs.

In my colleague's opinion, why did his government take away the five extra weeks of benefits? In our region, where jobs are hard to come by, that meant a lot. It helped people get through the so-called black hole and support their families. It was really important to them.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, the essence of my speech is that we cannot have a system where someone only has to work 45 days, or 360 hours, to collect a full year of employment insurance coverage. I certainly sympathize with some of situations in sectors across the country. I come from a very rural riding, a very agricultural and energy-based riding, where there are seasonal workers.

However, the whole focus of our changes to EI were to provide incentives for people to find work, to get a job. If people have to move to a community to find that job, then that is something Canadians have done for generations. I understand that some people do not have those opportunities.

The social safety net is there for them when they need it, but the most important thing is for people to find a job.