Cheryl Hardcastle

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, would the member tell me what his bone of contention is with our motion? Why is he not supporting the motion after everything he has just said, which aligns with the intent of our motion?

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, being a new MP, I have had to come into this honourable chamber and learn a little bit more about the politics. One of our colleagues opposite, earlier today, articulated that there was a definition of the term of leader, where one could grab the baton and go to the front. I know that we have been championing changes to EI. Yes, they do align with some of the changes that the Liberals had wanted to make. Unfortunately, this is just a matter of people taking credit.

How we could move forward is to realize that this motion is about the immediate action. It is about the low-lying fruit. We need to be able to set the path and the parameters for the more nuanced changes that the hon. minister spoke about earlier today in our debate. I was very privileged to hear that.

I did feel heartened by it, even though a part of me did accept the cynicism of the politics of it. I really do believe that our EI system has a lot of merit to it. We know that these are the immediate changes that need to take place. I have every faith that our system and the debate today will allow some of the merit to come forward. No matter how it is presented, the tenets of this motion are going to be the first things that we have to do. We have to hit the ground running.

In bringing this motion today, some of us were very frustrated that these things had not already been done in over 100 days of governance. These were the no-brainers.

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am very well-versed in our NDP platform that was fully costed and included addressing corporate taxation and addressing tax loopholes, so that everyone is paying his or her fair share.

I would like to note, as well, that the employers are also paying into this EI system. They are the ones, especially in the resource sector that is currently being championed today, who want a returning workforce when they are ready.

I am very confident that we could implement these changes, and they would provide the stimulus that we require and decrease a burden on other social service programs that end up needing to be accessed. The original intent of our employment insurance program was that when people were knocked down, they could get up again. What we have now is a hole that is so deep that when people get knocked down, they cannot climb out. This is a broken policy. The intent and rationale need to be re-addressed. We need to stay the course to be able to do that.

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, when the recession hit in late 2008, Ottawa enacted temporary measures to stabilize the economy and help households make ends meet. The most important of these was adding an extra five weeks to the EI benefits. When the economy is bad, it takes workers longer than usual to find new jobs. This would be especially true when one sector or region is at the centre of most job losses, which we have now with Alberta and the energy industry. Another five weeks of benefits would recognize this reality and give workers the time they need to find a good job. Increasing access to benefits would make the stimulus more effective and equitable.

The Liberals' EI election promises slated to take effect in January 2017 would seem to be straightforward, and there are some that must take place now. The nuances of these changes can be discussed meaningfully as time goes on, but we also have the so-called low-hanging fruit that our motion addresses here today.

First is the promise to eliminate the eligibility requirement of 910 hours of insured employment for new entrants and re-entrants to the labour market. If the federal government eliminated the higher requirement for this group immediately, it would make access to EI fairer, especially for those who are new to the workforce.

Second, unemployed workers are facing significant delays in getting benefits approved, receiving decisions on appeals, or even having their questions answered. Cuts to front-line services over the past few years have been devastating to the EI program. More staff must be hired to make sure the benefits flow without delay. It would also take little time to scrap the 2012 changes to EI, such as reversing the three tiers of workers, returning to the previous definition of suitable employment, and restoring the best 14 weeks pilot programs that created a single national standard for determining benefit levels.

Finally, existing skills training programs are important to help workers transition to new employment.

Another Liberal election promise was an increase of $200 million to fund provincial literacy and essential skills training aimed at those who do not qualify for EI. While it is not part of EI, it would help where it is needed most.

We believe these are changes that can be done quickly and painlessly. We salute the new government's commitments to make sizeable investments in infrastructure. The Liberals have promised to provide much-needed investments into the areas of affordable housing, public transit, and municipal water system upgrades over the next few years. All of these are necessary and will contribute to economic growth and the well-being of Canadians, but they will not give the economy the boost it needs now. Employment insurance can help fill the gap, and that is what we are here to do today.

In the Windsor-Essex area, within which we find my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, the unemployment rate is 9.6%, which is significantly higher than the national rate of 7.2% now. These people, like the unemployed throughout the country, have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are at the mercy of market forces, which they did not create and over which have no control.

We heard some numbers earlier today in the statements made by other hon. members. I wanted to know what some of these numbers about unemployment meant for my area, so I did some cursory number-crunching as well, the back-of-the-envelope type, just to illustrate my point. While it is not entirely scientific, it is close enough to paint a very poignant picture of the immediacy of the issues that are involved in the motion as it is articulated here today.

While the population of the Windsor area, which is Windsor and Essex County, is around 319,246 people, the percentage of those who are of working age is 67.5% or about 215,491 people.

With an unemployment rate at 9.6%, this would work out to 20,618 people. However, when I again look at the number of people who are currently utilizing EI benefits, according to the government's own figures the number is 5,640. That is 5,640 out of 20,618 people without work. That is how many are eligible to collect EI. That is pretty brutal.

One's thoughts go immediately to the over 16,000 people who are unemployed and yet, for whatever reason, do not have access to employment insurance. I know some of these 16,000 will be students. A small percentage of them will be unable to work. I provide these figures as a broad sense of how many people might be denied access to EI benefits in the Windsor—Essex area.

I know members agree these numbers are horrifying because we know that numbers are numbers and people are people.

I would also like to add that while the debate we are having may require a lot of numbers and statistics, we do not forget that unemployment figures are more than figures, a data table, or a spreadsheet. These are family members, friends, and neighbours. They are parents raising children, our future workforce. They are sons and daughters who are providing for their parents that important informal caregiving that we all need as we age.

As I alluded to earlier, a series of policy changes over the last two decades has made access to EI benefits increasingly difficult. Back in 1990, 83% of unemployed Canadians received benefits, but it took a dive to 42% in 1998, when the former Liberal government redesigned the program to make it far less generous. After further changes by the Harper government the beneficiaries to unemployed ratio fell below 40% in 2012, for the first time in almost 40 years. Further changes in 2013 drove down the eligibility rate to 37%, a new all-time low. It also became tied to absurd rules, like accepting any job the government deemed suitable even if entirely unrelated to one's career, it comes with a 30% pay cut, and requires an hour-long commute.

As job losses are mounting, Canadian families are struggling and they need immediate action from the government. After 20 years of Conservative and Liberal reforms, our employment insurance program is completely broken and is not providing the help that Canadian families need. The Liberals and Conservatives have dramatically slashed access to employment insurance benefits, leaving the majority of unemployed Canadians unprotected.

Over 80% of the unemployed received unemployment insurance benefits before the Liberals devastated the program with its reforms in the 1990s. After the Liberals' reforms, EI coverage fell to less than 50% of the unemployed. Under the Conservatives, access to EI benefits fell to historic lows, with fewer than 4 in 10 unemployed Canadians receiving regular EI benefits.

In December, the last month for which we have data, only 38.9% of unemployed Canadians received benefits. Both the total number and the proportion of unemployed Canadians went down compared to November, even though the number of unemployed Canadians increased.

Economic mismanagement has also contributed to the low number of Canadians receiving EI benefits. 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 where it made it difficult for them to accumulate enough hours. Currently, to qualify for EI regular benefits a worker needs to work between 420 and 700 hours in the preceding 52 weeks before they can make a claim.The number of hours is based on the regional rate of unemployment in the claimant's region. New entrants and re-entrants need 910 hours to qualify for EI regular benefits.

The NDP has long proposed a threshold of 360 hours for workers, regardless of where they live. The cost of this proposal, based on the NDP's calculations during the campaign, would be $1.2 billion, a cost the EI account can easily afford, given the current surplus and assuming that this pool paid for by workers and their employers is protected.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member, since we are talking about being incredulous, what exactly it is that makes the member believe that bombing works.

We talked about intervention in past conflicts, a bit in the speech, and we have those examples. We have examples in this region that indicate that it does not in fact contribute to a peaceful outcome.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, who has given a very comprehensive explanation about what he thinks Canada's role is, if he is at all disappointed that there is absolutely no mention in the motion of ultimately Canada's role being one of giving assistance, monitoring, for crimes against humanity? There is no mention at all of Canada's role in the United Nations and our mandate as members. Is he disappointed at all in that?

[Business of the House, February 4th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say in this odd way that it is very unfortunate that the hon. member had to use Windsor as her example talking about social consciousness and the fiscal responsibility that we need in moving forward and that it is a tricky mix.

In my area though, it really is not. We have to be very open-minded in our perspectives as we are all developing fiscal policy. Unfortunately, some of us who end up here have been in their bubble for an awfully long time. I sat here previous to the hon. member's speech and listened to a member talk about middle-class fiction because the middle class is struggling. Come to my riding and I can say it is not fiction.

Another hon. member's speech talked about spending and deficits because money can buy fun. I find that so distasteful and very alarming when the Liberal government will be preparing and presenting a budget that I hope we as parliamentarians will be able to be very meaningfully engaged in. The member used my riding as an excuse. Is she committed in moving forward that conscientiousness for areas like Windsor that need a commitment to health care, that need a recommitment to the—

[Business of the House, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I can add to that list. I know the history that I went through in my speech was expedited to make the point that this was a false debate.

I can talk about the variety of housing options that are at the brink of crisis because they are expiring. We need an affordable housing commitment from the federal government. What about our commitment to health care? If the Conservatives are such brilliant money managers, they must know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and that the Canada accord, a recommitment to health care, and real national leadership in providing health care in Canada is probably the smartest way to maximize our tax resources.

We could go on, but the whole point is that to have this kind of debate and to talk about these meaningful items is better done in the context of really advancing some good policies. It is really unfortunate that we are having this meaningful exchange here over something that is such a flagrant misuse of the opposition day.

[Business of the House, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are playing with numbers. They can isolate a moment in time and pretend that they are trying to advance ideology, but we all know that this report shows there are surpluses and deficits. This is just so self-indulgent when we could be moving forward.

We have shown real discipline in how we would be advancing all of our social causes. We laid that out in a fully costed platform, and we were the only party that did that.

[Business of the House, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, when I saw that the Conservatives were tabling this particular motion on their opposition day, part of me wanted to laugh and the other part struggled to fight off a deep frustration and a deep despair. Sure, the motion is factually correct and absolutely we support and salute the work of the officials of the Department of Finance, which the motion references. Yet there is a massive elephant in the room, and that is that this motion is designed to ignore the actual economic record. Yes, that elephant is the actual economic record of the former Conservative government. In fact, this motion seems designed to deflect attention away from the brutal fact that our country is only now emerging from one of the most grievous eras of economic mismanagement that we have ever had the misfortune to endure. The Conservatives like to present themselves as competent economic managers, but honestly, this was always more a public relations effort than fact. They seem to believe that if they just repeat this falsehood enough, people will believe it.

Let us talk about this record. According to analysis by economists Jordan Brennan and Jim Stanford, published last September—one that applied standard measures such as job creation, unemployment, GDP growth, productivity, personal incomes, debt, and more—the previous Conservative prime minister ranked or tied for last among all post-war prime ministers. He ranked or tied at second-last in another six cases. Across all 16 of the indicators the study used, the government's average ranking was the worst of any post-war administration—not even close to the second-worst, another Conservative, Brian Mulroney.

In a market economy, two of the most strategic components of spending are business spending and exports. The Conservatives' abysmal failure to garner more business investment within Canada and to increase exports has been especially damaging. Conservatives promised that expensive corporate tax cuts costing $15 billion per year would boost investment, and that signing more free trade deals would do the same for exports, but neither has worked, as we all know. Canadian corporations have not used the money saved by the tax cuts to create jobs or expand their infrastructure; they sat on it. Recent figures from Statistics Canada show corporate Canada's pile of dead money now hovers at $680 billion.

Exports hardly grew at all under the former prime minister—they were the slowest in post-war history—and business investment was stagnant and is now declining.

Government spending cuts, enforced in earnest after the Conservatives won their majority in 2011, only deepened our macroeconomic pit of despair. As noted by economists Scott Clark and Peter DeVries, when the Conservatives first formed government in 2006-2007, they inherited a surplus of $13.8 billion and within two years' time this became a deficit of $5.8 billion. After that point, the Conservatives were in deficit each and every year. If this is competent economic management, I shudder to think how Canadians would live under their conception of incompetence.

Economic growth has declined in every year since 2010 and averaged only 1.7% per year. In the previous nine years, economic growth averaged 3.4% per year. In 2014, only 120,000 new jobs were created, less than in 2013. Now these same people stand before us today, hoping that we will forget about all of this and just focus on a tiny moment in time when there was a tiny surplus that the Conservatives managed to obtain during their final weeks in power. Here we must ask ourselves how this surplus was achieved. It was by closing Veterans Affairs offices and by eliminating staff at Service Canada and indeed across every branch of the federal government responsible for delivering vital services to Canadians. The former government even used a flimsy legal technicality to deny claims of thousands of residential school victims.

It also turns out that federal departments and agencies helped out by not spending an estimated $8.7 billion for different programs that had been requested and often publicly announced by the government and approved by Parliament, the so-called lapsed funding.

Lastly, the surplus was achieved through the sale of General Motors in April-May of 2015, and the NDP opposed this sale. It was essentially the sale of these shares, an estimated $3.5 billion, that enabled the Conservative government to balance its pre-election budget. The main unions criticized this action, calling it short-term political gain for the next federal election—precisely. Therefore, the motion being debated today creates a false debate and is really a missed opportunity to talk about the real issues facing Canadians in these uncertain times. It is a futile effort to misrepresent the record of the former government by its remaining representatives in the House.

Canadians are not buying it. They know what is up and they know that this motion is an opposition day motion, with the emphasis on opposition. Meanwhile, there are families, workers, and low-income Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. Conservatives are welcoming the numbers in this report, while Canadians continue to suffer the consequences of Conservative mismanagement.

Low-income Canadians, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and those most vulnerable in our society face long wait times for their benefits, long wait times to have problems with their payments addressed or appealed, and across the board, the departments serving them have been cut to the bone by the former government. However, we are not supposed to think about our grandmothers or the elderly waiting for pension payments. We are supposed to focus on the surplus.

Accordingly, this motion is a missed opportunity to discuss real issues facing Canadians. We cannot contradict this motion. It is based on facts, however cherry-picked, and instead of wasting time squabbling over partisan numbers, my question is why the Conservatives and the Liberals are not discussing the issues that are actually affecting Canadians.

The NDP is the only progressive party that is actually working on behalf of workers and low-income Canadians. It proposed a number of concrete measures, including the national child benefit supplement, the guaranteed income supplement, $15-a-day child care for all Canadian families, and restoring the labour-sponsored tax credit. Instead of using their opposition day motion to try to rewrite economic and political history, I encourage the Conservatives to consider using such opportunities as a means to advance the real needs and interests of all Canadians.