Debates of Feb. 25th, 2016

Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you will know that, today, fanatics have again launched a Quebec bashing campaign following the comments made by the Premier of Saskatchewan. Therefore, I seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That the House of Commons condemn the disrespectful remarks made by the Premier of Saskatchewan regarding Quebec and the fanatical call against Quebec by Ezra Levant.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I do not hear unanimous consent.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to point out that the “Fiscal Monitor” is a snapshot in time, and does not give the fiscal situation—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The member knows that this is debate. We do not need any debate during points of order.

Now, we can go to the usual Thursday question. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask the Thursday question, I would point out to the member for Malpeque that if he does not have a problem with it, he could allow us to table it. Anyway, I will keep to the matter at hand.

I know that next week we will all be hard at work in our constituency, meeting with constituents and various stakeholders. However, I was wondering if the government House leader could update the House as to what business will be deliberated both tomorrow and when we come back from our ridings.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate on the opposition motion that we began this morning.

Tomorrow, we will have the final day of debate at second reading on Bill C-4, concerning unions. I would like to note that the votes relating to this bill will be deferred to the end of the day on Monday, March 7, pursuant to an order adopted earlier today.

I want to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House for their co-operation in finding an agreement on this matter, and also on the ISIL motion, which was debated earlier this week.

Next week, as my colleague indicated, members will be working in their ridings.

On Monday, March 7, we will resume debate, at second reading stage, of Bill C-2 concerning a tax cut for the middle class. I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, March 8, will be an allotted day. On Wednesday, we will begin debate at second reading stage of Bill C-6 on citizenship, which was introduced this morning by my colleague, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. On Thursday, we will begin consideration of Bill C-5 concerning public servants' sick leave.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I know that you have been looking forward to this. Pursuant to Standing Order 83 (2), I would ask that an order of the day be designated for the Minister of Finance to present the budget at 4 p.m., on Tuesday, March 22, 2016.

(Bill C-222: On the Order: Private Members' Business)

Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Canada-Barbados Income Tax Agreement) — Mr. Ste-Marie.

Income Tax Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Before proceeding to the orders of the day, I wish to draw the House's attention to Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Canada-Barbados Income Tax Agreement), standing in the name of the member for Joliette.

The bill is intended to amend the Income Tax Act, by including in the definition “taxable Canadian business”, any business that is entitled to a special tax benefit conferred by Barbados under the Canada-Barbados Income Tax Act Agreement, 1980. The purpose of the bill is to put an end to the tax benefits that certain companies currently enjoy under the income tax regulations. If the bill were adopted, it would increase the tax payable by these companies. Essentially, it involves eliminating a tax exemption.

As members know full well, any measures of this type raise questions about the need for ways and means motions. As it states on page 900 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, the House must adopt a ways and means motion before it can introduce a bill that imposes a tax or other charge on the taxpayer. Historically, this was referred to as charges against the people and, like today, required the adoption of a ways and means motion.

As described in the 24th edition of Erskine May, at page 761:

...'charges upon the people' may be...summarized as: (a) imposition of taxation, including the increase in rate, or extension in incidence, of existing taxation; (b) the repeal or reduction of existing alleviations of taxation, such as exemptions or drawbacks;

Further, at page 763, it states:

The requirement for a Ways and Means resolution also applies to any proposal for a change in tax law or the administration of tax collection which may lead, albeit incidentally, to an increased or accelerated tax burden for any class of taxpayers. A Ways and Means resolution was accordingly needed to authorize the Treasury to vary the way in which certain taxes have effect in relation to a transfer of property, rights or liabilities.

The question before the Chair is whether this is the case with Bill C-222. It is clear that, by obliging certain entities to bear an additional tax or charge by eliminating an exemption, the bill standing in the name of the member for Joliette would mean that the entities would pay more tax. As a result, C-222 should have been preceded by a ways and means motion. The rules in this respect are clear; such a motion can only be introduced by a minister.

When confronted with a similar situation on November 4, 2011, my predecessor ruled that the legislative steps completed, namely introduction and first reading, had not respected the provisions of the Standing Orders and were therefore null and void.

The current circumstance is the same and, as a result, the Chair must order that the second reading of Bill C-222 be deemed null and void and that the bill be discharged from the Order Paper.

The hon. member is not without recourse. He may make use of a motion if he wants to ensure that the House debates this question. I therefore invite him to consider this option.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to talk today about employment insurance and the effect it has on the Canadian economy, Canadian citizens, and, most importantly, the most vulnerable in our communities. We can always measure a community and a country by how we treat our most vulnerable citizens. Sadly, Canada has not done a good job, not with our aboriginal nations, not with persons with disabilities, and, of course, not with social programs like employment insurance.

The motion today takes into account a number of different issues. The first is about acknowledging the mounting job losses. In Windsor West, we are not unfamiliar with this, having, for the last 14 years that I have been in the House, most usually among the highest, if not the highest, unemployment in the country. We have witnessed workers in the past who have paid into this system on a regular basis, only then to find out later that they do not qualify. That is a shame. When we pay into an insurance system, we would expect that we would get something back. We would expect that the terms and conditions of that policy would not be changed by others in this chamber, and over here with regard to the Conservatives, which has happened.

For example, say individuals sign a personal insurance policy for their house, the company would at least notify them if it were going to change the policy. Sometimes they would get a discount. If it were going to increase, they would at least be notified and have an option to get in or out of that product.

In the House of Commons over those years, we have seen unilateral majority-type changes that have changed people's input into employment insurance—sometimes for 30 or 40 years—and when they finally need it, they find out that they are not eligible. That is unacceptable. That is unfair. That is a breach of contract and trust from the most important decision body there is, their government.

Individuals' insurance agencies do not take it for granted, but our own government does it to our own population, and it does it with a focus on the most vulnerable. The most vulnerable are part-time employees, employees who do not accumulate hours, and employees who have a disability who work part-time when they are able and end up not being eligible for employment insurance. It is not their fault that they are in precarious work, meaning part-time, seasonal jobs, and temporary employment.

Coming from a community that has faced this, we have gone from regular mainstream employers being the number one employment, to now having employment agencies as the number one employer in our region. It is a shame. I used to work on behalf of persons with disabilities as an employment specialist. Thank goodness, we actually had support to do this. We worked to get people off of disability support, be it provincial or federal. I was a support case worker. I was an employment specialist, who went out and made contact with employers and trained the employees. We got them jobs.

Sadly, the province at that time, first the Conservatives and then the Liberals, clawed back the Ontario disability support program payments to up to 75% of what the employees earned on this program. People went to work every single day without a problem. They were proud to have a job and to contribute. They made friends and other contacts that they normally would not have had. However, they worked at 25% of the wage of everybody else who worked there.

These unacceptable practices are ingrained into our political system. My appeal today is to my colleagues. Let us stop being part of that. Let us stop being part of a matrix of issues that end up costing our workers so much.

Part of this campaign that we are working on is to ensure that all Canadians have immediate action taken on this file. We cannot wait any longer. We see what is happening in Alberta right now, and in other places and jurisdictions. It is one of several places. We have seen what has happened on the east coast before. It is very significant. If my good friend, Yvon Godin, were here, he would certainly give highlights and would be proud to carry the flag for them in their region.

He started out talking about employment insurance. He actually talked about it to get his message out. He got into the back of a truck and used a bullhorn to talk to people in parking lots, grocery stores, and other places, and people would come to hear Yvon speak. He took it on the road all over the place. We miss his voice in this debate. However, he is here in spirit with us New Democrats, and we are proud of that.

Another issue we have with the employment insurance system is the qualifying period. There needs to be a national base minimum acceptance level one must qualify for to obtain employment insurance.

Right now, the employment insurance system is like a gigantic puzzle for people when they are experiencing a most stressful time, such as having lost their job or been laid-off, not knowing what the future holds for them and their family. Their colleagues are in the same predicament, and they wonder where the next mortgage payment will come from. They submit a claim in the EI process and it becomes a crapshoot whether or not they will be accepted. Therefore, we have proposed a qualifying minimum of 360 hours. We feel that is a stable level, because in certain areas of my region, it is generally over 400 hours, However, there are people in pockets and areas of the region where it is difficult to get work and hard to achieve the 360-hour minimum, so they wait around for something to happen because there is a two-week waiting period, which is painful for people.

On the other hand, we spend valuable resources on casework and programming, which is ridiculous. For example, when the Chrysler plant in my region needs to retool, it plans this well in advance, for up to a year. As it is well planned out, the employment insurance staff know that those positions will be returning in a matter of weeks. However, they send the workers who have been laid-off due to retooling to employment insurance school to learn how to get another job even though they will be returning to their jobs. It is a waste of resources that we could be using on other people who do not have a job to return to, rather than for those who would in any case be going back to a job that pays benefits and is good for the community.

Another issue I would like to speak to is that both the Liberals and the Conservatives purged the surplus in the EI fund. That needs to be protected.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Stolen.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

“Stolen” is the right word.

Madam Speaker, let us discuss what employment insurance really is. It is the workers' contribution as citizens and employees, and the employers' contribution for that employment insurance aspect. There is no government money involved in that whatsoever. We simply run the program.

That purging of the system has to stop. There was $56 billion that was stolen from workers. They need to return it now.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I can agree with a fair amount of what my colleague shared with the House. Perhaps I will disagree with him that Yvon Godin, our former friend and colleague, would need any kind of voice amplification if he were standing on the back of a truck. In this House, he was certainly very passionate and well-informed on issues around EI, and he brought that issue to the House on many occasions. Certainly, our colleague from Acadie—Bathurst is doing the same from this bench.

Much of the motion today does align with promises that we have made and that we as a government intend to keep going forward. However, we do differ on some choices in a couple of areas. One of the main issues is that we had indicated we would reduce the wait time from two weeks to one week, and there are certain costs involved in that.

Although it is not mentioned in the motion, does my colleague agree with the reduction of the waiting period from two weeks to one week?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's comments about Yvon Godin are very germane. The only reason he needed a bullhorn was that the crowds were so large. There was such an interest in the subject matter that even Yvon needed help. Anyone who knows Yvon knows how loud he can be. I appreciate my colleague's intervention on his work and his knowledge of that. It is very kind and generous.

With regard to the issue of the reduction from two weeks to one week, or no weeks, it is not our money. If people qualify, they qualify and they get their money. I do not know why we have to keep one week of people's earnings that they contributed as employees and the employer has contributed. I say we should give that money back.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, given that there has been so much reminiscing about a former colleague, Yvon Godin, I say it was good to see former colleague Jeff Watson, the former MP for Essex, who was in town last night. I know he mixed it up on occasion with my friend from Windsor West, but he was a tremendous advocate for working people, particularly in Windsor.

I agree with a couple of the comments by my colleague in the NDP. Certainly the stress of the waiting period and uncertainty related to EI is something that all members of Parliament hear in their offices from people, and if there is a problem, we all like to try to help people access the program.

Where I disagree and where it seems this opposition day motion is really missing the mark is that this program is an insurance program. As the member said, it is their money, but they have to pay into a program to then receive from it. A threshold of 360 hours ends up being only 45 days of work, and that would not be a positive incentive for an insurance program that is to be there for people when they lose a permanent job, people have paid into the insurance program for that purpose.

I would ask the member how it would help our economy and the sustainability of the EI program to have a threshold that is really far too low.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, putting any money back into poor people's pockets is a boost to the economy. We are talking about saving their homes, making sure they have money for food and the basics, and looking for another job.

If members do not believe me, believe the person in my riding who wrote to me, Michelle Baldwin. She was attacked and had a back injury. She stated, “I have not yet received a dime from EI, although I have provided all the necessary items”. She worked a part-time job for about six months, lasting until October, which was the reason for the delay, and then was no longer provided any support. She paid in up to her capability with the jobs that were available and what her physical condition allowed, and yet her claim was totally nullified because she worked a part-time job. Part-time jobs do not pay a lot of money normally. She was nullified.

We made someone with a disability and who is living on the poverty line pay into something she would never get. That is a shame and the government over here is also complicit in taking from the employment insurance money. It is their money, not the government's.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to join the debate on the motion.

I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kenora.

I just had a conversation with the member for Kenora, who was in the House quite a few years prior to this, and he said this is probably more about the fact that the NDP want to be seen as pushing the government to make change.

Earlier I shared with the House my great love and appreciation for that famous American philosopher, Willie Nelson, whose definition of a leader is when one sees a whole group of people going in one direction, to grab a baton and jump out in front. I think that is where we are today.

We said in our platform that we would address the changes that had been made to EI by the past government, because we know they have hurt workers. We were very clear in our platform that we would to change that and take some responsibility and show some leadership on this.

In response to the throne speech, and certainly every day in the House, although there have not been any questions from the Conservatives on this, the leader of the NDP asks the Prime Minister about it. The Prime Minister is steadfast that we are serious about this. We made the promises. I know that our minister is seized with this and is very much engaged in it. I am looking forward to when she comes forward with a tranche of changes.

However, I think it would be helpful for the debate to peel back a little to at least 2012 and see the changes that were made at that point, because there were significant changes that hurt many areas and sectors of this country.

In Atlantic Canada, seasonal workers and industries contribute to 53% of the regional GDP. Those industries, whether tourism, forestry, fishery, construction, or whatever it might be, need a skilled labour force. However, what we saw with the changes made by the last government was that they chased people out of rural communities. The Conservatives vilify seasonal workers in particular.

Members might remember the satirical show This Hour Has 22 Minutes when the actors were chasing EI recipients around Prince Edward Island. They came up with a skit called “PEI EI PI” where they were chasing people down and hiding behind bushes to see whether or not they were really out looking for work. That is when people saw the government sort of turning over those rocks.

We absolutely believe that there has to be integrity in the system, and I do not think that the NDP believe anything less. However, the Conservatives' changes went beyond. We heard this from provincial and municipal leaders. We would hear from councillors in rural communities or a county warden who knew that the main job provider in the community was having trouble finding workers, because they were being scared out of seasonal industries. Those industries were hanging on by a shoestring, and these changes did nothing to enhance their opportunities. We see now that a lot of those sectors are up against this problem of trying to find qualified workers. These changes very much had an impact.

The Conservatives also tried to starve the beast. It was almost like they did it on purpose. They cut 600 jobs out of EI processing and call centres. In 2008, Service Canada had a service standard that if one phoned a call centre, 95% of the time the call was answered within three minutes. However, the Conservatives cut the jobs, sent those people home, and closed those call centres and processing centres in everyone's riding except Peter MacKay's and Gerald Keddy's—but I do not want to be cynical about this, and maybe that was just a coincidence. However, when they closed those call centres, they lost those people working the phones.

By the end of that year, the call centres had to downgrade the service standard from 95% of the calls being answered in three minutes to 80% of the calls being answered in three minutes. By 2014, they were not hitting the 80% in three minutes. They had to downgrade it again to 80% of the calls in ten minutes.

We heard testimony at the committee. We spoke with some young apprentices. They said that they had to quit their apprenticeship. When they go back to school, they receive EI benefits. However, they were waiting too long for their benefits. I asked why they did not phone the 1-800 number, knowing very well what the answer would be.

They had three stages of answers they would get. The first stage was they would actually get a warm body to say “Yes, I am here. I am from the government and I am here to help you.” The second was, “Please hold, a representative will with you shortly.” The third level was, “Could you please phone back later”, because of the number of the calls, and it would be a dropped call. Fifty-two percent of the time, people would get that third level. If they got the first level, they should have gone out and bought some quick picks because their planets were aligned.

People who worked at low wage jobs, who had finished their work, paid into the plan, made application, and were deserving of the benefits were frustrated and scared. They had to make a decision between putting fuel in the tank, or food in the fridge, or fill a prescription. That is a tough call at the kitchen table, and that was where a lot of people were.

The anxiety level in those households went through the roof. Whether it was a tactic or whether or it was an outcome that the government had not intended, and I am not sure, that is exactly what happened.

We hope to make those investments. We hope to fix those problems with the slate of changes we will come forward with. We understand and respect the intent of the changes identified in today's motion.

We are committed to making the program more accessible. We believe the 920 hours needed for new entrance or re-entrance into the program is a detriment. It is punitive. If we go back to the different regions of the country that have unemployment rates, if we abide by them and make those the qualifying hours for first-time or re-entrance, that will certainly increase the number of Canadians who have access to the program. That levels the field, in many cases, and will be of great help. This is what we heard during the campaign. People believed this was necessary to fix the program.

When we talk about Canadians who work in low wage jobs or in precarious employment, quite often there are concerns around numeracy and literacy. Certainly the cuts made by the past government to the LMAs to various provinces impacted directly. I know the minister at the time said that we were not running these programs, but provinces relied on those dollars, and they were delivering numeracy and literacy programs. These are our most vulnerable in society.

I see a great deal of merit in today's motion. I probably agree more so with the member for Kenora. I am very pleased with the Prime Minister and the minister coming forward with a solid slate of progressive changes that will help support a modern workforce in this day and age, and that will help Canadian workers.

We look forward to the time when we can present the government's changes to EI.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the hon. member speak. All the eight years I have been here, it has been a pleasure, but he did not have a rhyme on this one.

We keep hearing from the government side about the commitment. We hear from the minister that it is being worked on, but what my province, the premier of my province, and Mayor Iveson are looking for is a change more quickly for Alberta. I can empathize with the struggle for employment in the Maritimes. Certainly the resource sector in Newfoundland and Labrador has been hit, just like in Alberta. However, in the Maritimes people can claim with far less hours and get benefits for a much longer time.

Is it not fair that Alberta be treated better now? It is possible for the government to move expeditiously by simply changing the eligibility requirements and length of benefits for Albertans.

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

Madam Speaker, I know many Albertans are having a very difficult time. Atlantic Canadians have been part of the success of Alberta. They have worked rotations. I was at the airport the other day. Usually there are 10 rows of Ford F-150 stretch cabs parked at the Sydney airport. I parked in the middle of the second row. Alberta's pain is being felt across the country. It has long been the engine that has driven our economy.

I know the minister is absolutely engaged on the question around the time period and the qualifiers. As the unemployment rate rises, there are natural triggers within the system. Changes to qualifying and the period of time that one receives benefits are coming. I know our officials are in constant contact with the Alberta officials. I very much hope they will come sooner rather than later.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke earlier today and again just now about his appreciation for what was going on in Alberta. It is good to hear there is some support on that side of the floor. I hope he talks to the rest of his colleagues about the support that Alberta needs.

He is right that Atlantic Canadians have had a very significant impact on what has gone on in Alberta. We can see that with the number of flights leaving Fort McMurray and Grande Prairie. They have decreased to almost nothing in the last several months.

The Liberals have talked about agreeing with almost everything in the NDP opposition day motion, but one of the things that really concerns me is the thought of a 45-day work year. When the 45-day work year was first discussed in the House, I honestly thought somebody misspoke. I cannot believe we are supporting a 45-day work year. This is unsustainable. That leaves 320 days of the year that the government or other taxpayers are going to be subsidizing people on EI benefits. They have only paid into EI for 45 days and will claim for an entire year.

Could the member explain to me how a 45-day work year would be sustainable in the long term for the Government of Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, that would be the most concerning aspect of the motion. That was never in the Liberal platform and 360 hours was never something about which we talked. In our platform, we heralded the importance of increasing access, and we think we accomplished that by reducing the 920 hours down to regional standards. We think that can be done and we expect that to come forward, certainly when the package comes from the minister, very shortly. The issue of the 360 hours is of concern to this side of the House as well.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to follow my esteemed colleague and to enter into a debate that is extremely important to all Canadians.

The opposition is concerned about the unemployment rate in Alberta. I come from a region in Northern Ontario. My constituents have been living with an unemployment rate of 13% for at least a decade under the Conservatives. People in my region have become so used to a 13% unemployment rate that they think it is normal. That is why I am in this debate.

We as a government work with Canadians to supply employment insurance and different programs and services. We have to remember there are a many parts of our country that struggle continuously just to survive.

I speak to this from the perspective of what government is supposed to do on behalf of Canadians. Our role as government and as parliamentarians is to protect the most vulnerable. How do we characterize the most vulnerable? For me, they are the poorest people in our society. They are the seniors who are struggling just to make ends meet. They are our veterans, who we should always support because they have done their share in defending the democratic interests of our country. Those are the vulnerable people who we speak about on a regular basis. We want to ensure we make programs and services available to them.

People in the workplace are also vulnerable, whether they be part-time employees or employees making minimum wage. Canada's minimum wage is not a working wage in this society. It needs to be looked at in a serious way. We need to think about the unemployed from the perspective of regions of the country like mine where there are a lot of seasonal employees who have no choice but to accept the fact that in any given year there will be periods of time when they will be unemployed. We as governments have put in place programs that we think will help these vulnerable people.

One of the reasons why I am interested in speaking to the motion is that the NDP has put it forward for reasons that are not genuine. Those members know darn well that this government is within days of making some serious announcements about some of the major changes that we want to make. We committed to making these changes during the election campaign. The NDP members know this will happen because they have heard it from all of us day in and day out in the House and they have heard it from the Prime Minister.

Let me just repeat some of this for members opposite.

I have been fighting NDP candidates in my region for decades now. I beat them pretty much every time I run against them, and I will tell the House why. I beat them because they are not realistic in the way they approach their campaigns, and here is an example.

The New Democratic candidates who ran in the last campaign told everybody that they would balance the books in the first, second, third and fourth year. We all knew that would never happen. It was easy on the hustings to talk about the NDP and some of its policies. Those policies have to be real if we want to convince Canadians to vote for us. I had the great pleasure of running against the ex-NDP leader in Ontario. I enjoyed my time on the hustings against him because he was talking as if he was still in the sixties, not 2015.

I tell the House that because it goes to the motion we have been presented with today. We on this side of the House would love to support the motion. The member for Malpeque and I were just talking about that. If the NDP had presented a realistic motion, we would be on our feet supporting it. However, we cannot possibly support it because of the way it has been crafted. That plays into the NDP's hands, that the Liberals do not care about EI or the unemployed, but that is not the case.

In the short time I have, I am going to give a quick list of what this government is prepared to do within a matter of days.

To that end, we are going to eliminate the discrimination against workers that are newly entering the workforce or re-entering the workforce. That was mentioned by the parliamentary secretary.

We are going to reverse the 2012 changes to the employment insurance system that force unemployed workers to move away from their communities and take lower paying jobs. I represent one-third of Ontario's land mass. Moving away is a serious matter. That is like moving from one end of the Atlantic to the other and still being in my riding. So when people talk about moving away to take another job, I hope they do not mean the folks that I represent moving to Toronto, which would take 22 hours non-stop driving just to get there. We have to be realistic about the kind of things that the Conservatives brought in that just do not work.

I want to get a chance to speak about the rationalizing and expanding of the intergovernmental agreements, which is the labour market development agreement, and supporting training for unemployed workers.

I will stop with that list because it is exhaustive, but I want to speak to the really important commitment of this government. Those are going to be changes that we can make relatively quickly in the House, but the real interest from my perspective is the undertaking of a broad review.

If we know that employment insurance is so important to our constituents, and 40% of our constituents can qualify and the rest cannot, then we know we have a system that is broken, that needs to be looked at, that needs to be reviewed, that needs a broad review by government as to how we are going to get the other 60% of the people, who are not part of this system, into play if they need our help from government for employees and employers.

Keep in mind that this is a program that is funded by employers and employees. Keep in mind as well that we have a Canada Employment Insurance Commission, and we should be looking at the mandate of that commission. The commission should not have just the one job, the one role of looking at what amount each employer and employee pays into the system. We should look at the commission's role and responsibilities from the perspective of making sure that this program really does help Canadians; because if it does not, then we are just relying on the provinces to basically give these workers social assistance, when they may just need a step forward on skills development, on training, on opportunities for them to improve their lives and then potentially move on to another job.

When we made the commitment that we wanted to move from $500 million a year to provinces and territories for workers who are not eligible for EI, to increase it by an extra $200 million, so $700 million a year, I think that was a good start. Those are the people we are talking about. We are talking about the 60% who do not qualify, and where do they get help? They get help under that tool, that part of the EI system. So the more we can do in that area, and help those folks, makes a big difference.

Then the whole issue of the LMAs and the $2 billion of labour market programs, that is just a small amount in the system toward building the training structure and moving beyond the economy we have today and looking at productivity and how people would work in the new economy.

I do not enjoy representing a region that has 13% unemployment. I am here to try to make a difference. When I left politics in 2004, the unemployment rate in my region was around 10% and it had dropped from about 17% during the major recession when the Mulroney government was in power. When I came here, we worked very hard to start moving toward an unemployment rate that might be a little more realistic for a region like mine. That tells me that this program that the government has announced, which we will see in a few days, is the right approach to improving a system that all of us think needs to be improved.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I come from the building trades, and many of the people who are out of work across the country right now are tradespeople. It is frustrating for them, having paid a lot into the EI system, to now not be able to access those benefits when they need them. Their frustration increases in proportion to the amounts that they learn were taken out of the EI fund by successive Liberal and Conservative governments to use for other purposes, often corporate tax breaks, in fact.

The member for Kenora said there were aspects of the motion that he thought were unreasonable. We will have to agree to disagree on those. However, he certainly cannot think that the aspect of the motion is unreasonable that calls on the government to protect the EI fund from the whims of government dipping into it, taking money out of it, and using it for corporate tax cuts and other purposes. I would like him to stand up and let us know that he believes that is reasonable, and he will be calling on his government to ensure the EI fund is protected.