House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 17% of the vote.
Employment Insurance June 9th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, dozens of lawyers, professors, trade unionists and community workers are condemning the culture of secrecy around the Social Security Tribunal of Canada.
Of the 10,000 rulings made by the tribunal since 2013, only 148 have been made public. When Canadians take their case to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, they are entitled to all the jurisprudence in order to be as prepared as possible.
Will the Conservatives make public all the tribunal's decisions, and if so, when?
Business of Supply June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for what was a very passionate speech, and entirely justifiably so.
However, I would like him to dig a little deeper into his expertise. He talked a lot about his part of the country, which makes sense when he is talking about seasonal workers. I just want to emphasize once again that the workers are not seasonal; the jobs are. Fishing is harder in winter. Forestry in January is next to impossible. It is the work that is seasonal. That is a fact of life in our country, and we need to keep it in mind.
The problem is that too often, we tend to think that seasonal work is regional work: fishing, tourism and forestry. I gather that part of my colleague's riding is urban. Urban areas also have problems related to seasonal work. I am thinking of construction workers. Think of all the people in the film industry who work as technicians and whose busy time is the summer.
Can he tell me whether seasonal work is a fact of life in both urban and rural areas where he is from?
Business of Supply June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oak Ridges—Markham for his speech. It gives me an opportunity to expand the discussion a little and ask him this question.
Throughout his speech, he spoke at length about the importance of getting people back into the labour market as quickly as possible, and no one is opposed to that. He talked about the importance of contributing to developing a strong economy and putting as much money as possible in taxpayers’ pockets. I imagine that is so they can keep the economy going.
My question is very simple. How are all these figures pragmatic and consistent with another Conservative reform of employment insurance that means that, in the relatively short term, claimants—the four out of ten claimants who are lucky enough to get EI benefits—are required to accept any suitable employment, which itself is not defined, at 70% of their previous wages?
When we know that the average wage for people who claim employment insurance is about $15 an hour, what they are effectively saying is that they are putting everybody to work for minimum wage. Is this the economy they want to develop with their Conservative policy?
Business of Supply June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the electoral spin coming from my colleague from Richmond Hill, and although I do not agree with the substance of the speech, I would have found it easier to take if it had been at least consistent.
Since the beginning of this debate, there has been a lot of talk about how we want to raise taxes unreasonably. We are not talking about taxes. We are talking about premiums. When we buy insurance, we pay a premium in order to get services on the day that disaster strikes.
If we really want to talk about a tax, then we need to turn the question back to the Conservatives and ask them why they froze the contribution rate at 1.88 when the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the break-even rate was 1.75 for 2015. That is a real tax implemented deliberately in order to generate a surplus and allow the government to achieve its ideological goals.
We might also wonder what the Conservatives are doing with a job creation plan, funded by EI contributions, that will cost $550 million, and according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will create 600 jobs. That means that every job created will cost $950,000. Give must just one of those budgetary envelopes and I will create far more jobs than that in my own riding.
Could the Conservative side try to be a bit more consistent?
Business of Supply June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I found my Liberal colleague's comments a touch amusing. When I heard his all-out attack on the Conservative government, it made me think that this government had probably learned from the best.
My question is very simple. If we agree that the employment insurance fund should be balanced over an economic cycle and that it should be available to the people who need it when they need it, could my colleague explain the Liberals' poorly designed job-creation program, which was financed from the EI fund?
I do not see how this helps a worker who just lost his job, especially since they do not even seem to be able to distinguish between gross jobs and net jobs in their plan.
Business of Supply June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague's comments. I have to say that I concur with almost all the criticisms he directed at the Conservative government.
However, I am unable to ignore the fact that the reduced accessibility and benefits originated with the Liberal Party. The motion we moved today proposes measures to improve the plan.
My question is very simple: does my colleague agree that premiums must be protected and used for the purpose that they are collected for? Does he also agree that the government, no matter its stripe, should have no say in the process that sets the amount of the premiums?
Business of Supply June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the text that my hon. colleague just read to the House.
I must say, I have a hard time believing him when he says that employment insurance is always there for those who need it, when all the figures prove otherwise, and worse still, when many of the workers in this country are excluded from those figures and statistics, because they are no longer even part of the employment insurance system.
My question relates to that remark. I am sure everyone remembers that a few years ago, the former finance minister, Mr. Flaherty, urged large corporations to put the extra money they were saving as a result of tax breaks into the economy in order to create jobs.
Here is my question: is the employment insurance fund really the fund that should be used to pay for job creation measures? Consider the Conservative government's proposal for example. The Conservatives want to spend $550 million to create 600 jobs, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That $550 million will of course come from EI premium reductions. It seems to me that a real job creation program should be funded by general revenues and not by taxing workers twice.
Business of Supply June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that this is an absolutely catastrophic situation. Furthermore, both the Liberal Party and the Conservative party have messed around with the premium rate over the years to generate surpluses that do not result in more services for unemployed workers.
I am sure that I will have opportunities to speak to this again today. I will now turn the floor over to others.
Business of Supply June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I said earlier, the 75th anniversary of the system is a good reason to sit down and take a comprehensive look at it. That involves a number of related issues. For example, do we have valid statistical data on the job market that would justify taking those steps?
I hope that the Liberals will agree with us and make amends for what they have done in the past. The first thing we need to do is plug the hole in the bucket to make sure that the money collected for employment insurance is used for that and nothing else. If we do not make sure there is money to provide services, it is no use even thinking about all of those related issues.
The main goal of this motion is to stop the hemorrhaging and make sure that the money collected is used for the purpose it is collected for. Thank goodness that on October 19, we will have the only government that is promising not to use premiums for purposes other than those for which they are collected.
Business of Supply June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the hon. member simply forgot to listen to my speech.
For a party that boasts almost every single day in question period about respecting jurisdictions, I do not see how his question about a provincial jurisdiction is relevant to what we are discussing today. I really would have liked him to talk about employment insurance and try to defend his government's completely indefensible position. I am sure that we will be getting questions from the Conservatives all day long that try to avoid the issue, since all we ever hear from the Conservatives is doublespeak when it comes to employment insurance.