House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 74% of the vote.
Taxation September 15th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, they can trust us to reduce taxes because we have done that. It is that party that has raised taxes and spent billions of dollars.
On the one hand, the Liberals say, “Spend $4 billion or more on EI”. On the other hand, they say, “Do not raise taxes”. They have to decide which way they are going on that.
Employment Insurance September 15th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member did not hear me, but we froze the EI rates for two years. We do not increase taxes. We cut taxes in the billions of dollars. It is the leader of the Liberal Party who said that he plans to raise taxes when he spoke a few months ago.
Employment Insurance September 15th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the member is complaining about EI premiums and yet the Liberals want to spend billions on the 45-day work year that would cost a lot of money. They cannot have it both ways.
We have frozen the EI premiums for two years and established an arm's-length transparent body to set the rates in the future.
Employment Insurance Act September 14th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back in the House after spending the summer seeing our economic action plan create jobs.
With respect to this bill, to put it quite simply, and with deference to my colleague, the bill is not sound policy. It is therefore unsupportable. It proposes a significant number of changes to the EI system, a veritable laundry list of the oppositions' demands with respect to the system.
Among many other changes, this bill proposes a flat 360-hour national entrance requirement, and a permanent flat 360-hour requirement at that. Not only would this bill be unaffordable and irresponsible now and in the short term, but it would also be increasingly unaffordable, irresponsible and economically damaging over the long term.
As this proposal is a big ticket item in this bill, I would like to take time to discuss it in some detail. I know my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre noted the substantive cost to it. My learned colleague started in the low billions and then added to that list.
This bill would permanently reduce the EI entrance requirements to only 360 hours of work for regular benefits. Let us be perfectly clear about what this means. Three hundred and sixty hours is 45 days of work, just nine weeks. In reality this is a proposal for a two-month work year supported by the Liberal opposition, specifically the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. This program's history shows us that the 360-hour idea is nothing more than a return to the failed Liberal policies of the 1970s.
On August 1, in The Canadian Press, referring to this time and these negative Liberal policy effects, University of Ottawa economist David Gray said, “What happened in '71 to my mind was a policy catastrophe”. To repeat it today, he said, “would just be catastrophic for the Canadian economy”.
Shortening the qualification period for EI would be tantamount to encouraging a higher turnover of workers. The result of that kind of misguided policy could be a permanent rise in the unemployment rate.
Others agree, and I will quote the Canadian Chamber of Commerce's July 23 press release. It said:
moving to a national standard of 360 or 420 hours of work as the basis for qualifying for EI would have substantial adverse impact on Canada’s labour market--it would discourage work, increase structural unemployment, exacerbate skills and labour shortages, and stifle productivity.
All those are not acceptable. Simply put, they are ill-advised. Those are the not the sorts of policy outcomes the House should be pursuing.
Allow me to quote a few others. On August 1, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the flat 360-hour proposal was “just ludicrous”. It really sums it up.
On June 3, in the National Post, Jack Mintz, now the Palmer Chair in Public Policy at the University of Calgary, said that the flat 360-hour proposal is “[one] of the worst ideas...getting serious attention”. He said that, “shortening drastically the qualification period [for EI] would encourage greater turnover of workers, result in a permanent rise in the unemployment rate and impose a high economic cost”. It becomes quite clear what sorts of problems this 360-hour proposal carries with it.
The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development calculated the cost of this sort of proposal, and to put it mildly, it is costly. A 360-hour national entrance requirement including new entrants and re-entrants to the workforce, which this bill would do, and including the costs incurred by making the 360-hour standard permanent, which this bill would do, and including the related behavioural or dynamic effects of this permanent change, brings the cost of this policy alone to $4 billion. My learned colleague speaks in billions of dollars as well.
In addition to that, we would have to provide for the costs of all other changes proposed in this bill. This could be in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. This would not be responsible at this time.
Where do these many billions of dollars come from? They come from Canadian workers and employers; eventually that is where they come from. But the immediate effect would be to further increase the federal deficit. I think it should be clear to everyone that this 360-hour, two-month work year proposal is a very costly and irresponsible policy.
The proposals put forward in the bill would truly hurt our ultimate goal of encouraging and supporting unemployed Canadians in their efforts to get back to work. The two-month work year proposal is unacceptable as policy and unacceptable to hard-working Canadians. It is a policy change this government will not be pursuing.
I know the opposition has been talking about access to EI. I would like to point out that EI access is high among those persons for whom the program is designed. According to Statistics Canada's 2008 employment insurance coverage survey, 82% of the unemployed who have paid into the program and have either lost their jobs or quit with just cause were eligible to receive benefits. In fact, fewer than 10% of those who have paid the premiums and then lost their jobs lack the required number of hours to qualify.
These high rates of access are due in large part to the variable entrance requirement. As of September 2009, 38 of the 58 EI regions have seen their entrance requirements decrease and their benefit durations increase. That is the way it was intended to work. During this same period, more than 82% of Canadian workers gained access to EI.
Right now, the duration of EI benefits is something very much worth addressing. Bill C-308 does propose a change of duration. It proposes to make permanent the temporary five extra weeks of EI benefits this government introduced as part of Canada's economic action plan. Our government implemented this measure because we recognize that during these challenging economic times people need more time to find employment. We also temporarily increased the maximum duration of benefits available from 45 to 50 weeks. As of August 30, close to 289,000 Canadians had already received additional benefits and both of these measures will be in place for new claimants until September 2010.
While our government firmly believes that these measures are providing immediate support to workers and their families right now, we anticipate that these measures will no longer be needed a year from now when they are scheduled to lapse. Making these additional weeks of benefits permanent, as this bill proposes, may hinder economic recovery by contributing to disincentives to work and labour shortages when the economy rebounds. We do not think this policy proposal is a responsible measure to take.
Of significance, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has announced that she will be introducing more measures shortly to ensure that Canadians, who have paid into the EI system for years, are provided the help they need while they search for employment. This will be an important step for Canadian workers who have worked hard, paid their taxes their whole lives, and have found themselves in an economic hardship that they did not create.
Our government has already made a number of improvements to the EI program to support unemployed Canadians to help them get back into the workforce. We are providing five extra weeks of benefits. We made the EI application processes easier, faster and better for businesses and workers. We have increased opportunities for unemployed Canadians to upgrade their skills and get back to work. We are assisting businesses and their workers experiencing temporary slowdowns through improved and more accessible work sharing agreements. More than 160,000 Canadians are benefiting from work sharing agreements that are in place with almost 5,800 employers across Canada.
We believe it is important to ensure Canada's workforce is in a position to get good jobs and bounce back from the recession. Career transition assistance is a new initiative that will help an estimated 40,000 long-term workers, who need additional support for retraining, to find a new job. Through this initiative, we have extended the duration of EI regular income benefits for eligible workers, who choose to participate in long-term training, for up to two years. We are providing Canadians easier access and training that is tailored to the needs of workers in our country's different regions.
Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: finding solutions to help long-term workers who have worked hard and paid into the system for years but are having trouble finding employment through no fault of their own; extending benefits to self-employed Canadians; and getting Canadians back to work through historic investments in infrastructure and skills training. The temporary measures under Canada's economic action plan are well suited to respond to the economic situation.
Our plan provides support to unemployed Canadians over the short-term. It is designated to meet the needs of the current economy and to help Canadians get the skills they need for the jobs of the future.
Mr. Speaker, I have been here a number of times in the last while and I have had to repeat the message quite often because the opposition members cannot seem to get it. So we have had to go through the number of things we have done. They have been very significant things. We have taken strong steps, unprecedented steps, to help Canadians get through this difficult time. We will continue to work to help Canadians. We look forward to finding that common ground with the official opposition through the summer months to find a realistic, effective and responsible way to do that.
Certainly I compliment this hon. member in his work and interest in this area. I wish him well in the summer. I am sure it will detract from some of the things he wanted to do, but overall, I think it is important for Canadians to see that we can work together for common good in those areas where we believe we need to do that to help Canadians through this difficult time.
When members see us going forward with only that portion of our plan, the economic action plan, and as they see that hitting the ground, they will see how it will be helping our economy and Canadians. I think that is why we are here. That is why we work when we do. I hope for the best for the committee.
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour in being appointed to the blue-ribbon panel. Certainly it is good see this member getting on board in a constructive fashion. I know, despite the fact that he sometimes blusters, he is a very sincere and reasonable person, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he will make an important contribution to the end result. I do think we will see some productive work done through the summer. Certainly I congratulate the member in his role and wish him the best as he goes forward through the summer with the hearings.
As I have just said, we are certainly pleased that the member opposite will help our government to get our stimulus measures out to help Canadians. We are absolutely committed to helping Canadians get through tough economic times in order that they can move towards a more prosperous future. Our government has taken strong and unprecedented steps to help Canadians.
I think, in fairness, if one is to be objective, one has to look at what we have done. We have added five weeks to EI benefits. We have taken the pilot project national. We have increased EI's maximum duration to 50 weeks, up from 45 weeks. Over 130,000 Canadians are benefiting from improvements we have made to the work-sharing program. We have added significant funds, $60 million, to help speed up EI claims processing. We are investing significantly in skills training for Canadians, and we have lowered taxes for all Canadians.
When one looks at the total package, I think if one is to be objective and fair, one would have to say we are doing a significant amount. We have said we would continue to monitor the situation. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, we need to keep our economic action plan moving forward, because it, too, will create jobs. We are pleased that the official opposition will now work with our government to keep our stimulus measures flowing to Canadians.
We are also pleased that the official opposition, including the member opposite himself, will be working with our government towards finding a realistic, responsible and effective common ground on employment insurance so that we can continue to help Canadians get through these economic troubles and move toward a strong recovery.
The member opposite knows from the many times that we have discussed it here in the House and that I have mentioned it, the 360-hour, 45-day work year proposal is not realistic and it is a non-starter. The Prime Minister alluded to this earlier today. However, he also said he hopes we can find common ground.
I am sure we will be able to do that if we work in a constructive fashion. I look forward to finding this common ground, and I think Canadians do, too.
So that is what we expect from this group and from the member opposite. I am hoping that, when we come back, we will see some very positive, constructive recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear the member back off the 360 hours, 45-day work year and go forward with something far more constructive.
Our Conservative government's economic plan is helping Canadians keep their jobs. It is helping Canadians to get new skills. It is helping Canadians to get through these tough economic times and move toward a more prosperous future.
I am pleased the Liberal opposition is willing to work with the Conservative government to ensure we help Canadians in a responsible, effective and affordable way so we can move toward economic recovery as quickly and as responsibly as we can.
I invite the member to work with us, get behind us, as she said she would.
Mr. Speaker, we always take these matters seriously and there is no doubt about the fact that we are absolutely committed to helping Canadians who are going through this difficult time, through no fault of their own, to get through the difficult time. That is why we have already taken unprecedented steps to ensure that Canadians in need get the help they deserve.
To say we have done nothing is like someone saying he is driving a North American GM Chevy when he knows he is not. We are doing things. We are taking steps.
Over 85% of Canadians have easier access to EI now compared to October of last year. Through our Conservative government's economic action plan, we have lowered taxes and we have made unprecedented investments to help vulnerable and unemployed Canadians.
We have added five weeks to EI benefits, taking the pilot project national. We have increased EI's maximum duration to 50 weeks. We are preserving over 130,000 jobs through a better work-sharing program, less red tape and more flexibility.
We have added significant funds to help speed up processing. We are investing significantly in skills training for Canadians so they can get the jobs of the future.
We have committed $5.5 billion in total this year to EI benefits. That is interesting in light of the comments of my colleague. We need to keep our economic action plan moving forward. We are pleased that the official opposition, and this hon. member, will work with our government to keep our stimulus measures flowing to Canadians.
We are also looking forward to working with the official opposition on employment insurance. While it knows that we will not accept the 360-hour, 45-day work year proposal, there is room to find common ground on many issues.
We are pleased that the Liberal Party is willing to work with us toward finding constructive, responsible and affordable common ground on employment insurance, so that we can continue to help those Canadians going through tough economic times and move toward a more prosperous future. It is the responsible thing to do. It is the kind of thing that Canadians expect of us.
Once again, I thank the hon. member for her support of our economic action plan and the steps that we are taking.
Mr. Speaker, the member can put all the rhetoric together he wants, but the fact is the ill-conceived, ill-advised 45-day work year is not something that will wash with Canadians. It only will result in increasing taxes, job-killing payroll taxes, something Canadians do not want, something Canadians do not need. In fact, it will kill jobs. As the Liberal member from Kings—Hants suggested, it is a bad way to go.
We have done a number of things such as increasing the benefits by five weeks and ensuring the maximum goes from 45 weeks to 50 weeks. We have taken steps to preserve jobs to ensure that they continue. For those who do not qualify for EI, we have ensured that they have the ability to receive job training, skills upgrading, something the member should get behind and support.
Rather than trying to realign the system on the back of an envelope in two or three days, the Liberals should get behind a reasoned approach to EI.
Mr. Speaker, I responded to the member's question in question period. Our government is absolutely committed to helping Canadians who are going through difficult times through no fault of their own. We are always concerned when people lose their job. This is why we have already taken unprecedented steps to ensure Canadians in need get the help they deserve when they need it.
The reality is the current employment insurance program automatically adjusts to the downturn in the economy and allows for increased access to EI, while providing longer benefits. In fact, 41 of the 58 EI regions now have easier access to EI than in October 2008. This translates to over 85% of Canadians having easier access to EI now compared to October of last year. To this extent, the system is working. It is designed to work that way. It is working just as the previous Liberal government designed it to work.
As to how the EI critic from that member's party wants it to work, or at least how he wanted it to work last year in committee, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said the following, “when you reduce to the flat rate of 360 hours”, as suggested by the member, “the cost is pretty significant”. He said, “keep the regional rates. This is to protect those people in high unemployment areas”. The Liberal EI critic was not in favour of this national standard idea, this coalition 45-day work year idea. He acknowledged the high cost. He said that we should keep the regional rates because they helped protect Canadians in areas that had historic or chronic high unemployment.
The Liberal EI critic thought this was a bad idea just last year. It is not just a bad idea but an irresponsible one. The fact is this 45-day work year scheme will cost untold billions. How would the Liberals pay for it? With job-killing payroll taxes on hard-working employers, employees and businesses.
That is not something our government will do. It is not the way to go. Higher taxes are not what Canadians need right now, but that is exactly what the Liberals want to give to them. In fact, the Liberal leader promised to raise taxes.
On this side of the House, through our Conservative government's economic action plan, we have lowered taxes. We have made unprecedented investments to help vulnerable and unemployed Canadians. We have added five weeks to EI benefits, taking the pilot project national. We have increased EI's maximum duration to 50 weeks. We are preserving over 130,000 jobs through better work-sharing. We have added significant funds to help speed up processing. We are investing heavily in skills training for Canadians so they can get the jobs of the future. We will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures. We will be introducing further changes to EI later this year.
The Liberal opposition should get behind our government's efforts, support effective and responsible help for Canadians and ensure that its designs on power does not end up hurting Canadians just as our economy is showing some signs of renewed strength.