House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 46% of the vote.
Business of Supply October 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that under this program the majority of people who work while they are on claim will benefit and will be better off.
However, it is clear that opposition members do not want anyone to benefit from working while on claim. In fact, they voted against significant funding of $74 million for the working while on claim pilot project. Indeed, the opposition voted against countless initiatives we have put in place to help Canadians get back to work.
Business of Supply October 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, again, it is our firm belief that working is better than not working. As I pointed out in my remarks, there are 250,000 jobs that are going unfilled right across the country. These jobs are in rural, suburban and urban areas. We are encouraging people to work and acquire the dignity of work.
Business of Supply October 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the topic at hand I want to say how disappointed I was in the response to my question by the member for Beaches—East York. The contempt that he has for rural communities and natural resource industries was proudly on display. I guess the rest of the caucus has been infected with the mission and message of its leader, who wants to bring natural resource industries to their knees via a carbon tax and excess regulations.
I would remind the member opposite and all members of the House that at the current time it is the natural resource industries that are carrying the country. I proudly represent a natural resource constituency. The member for Hamilton Centre often extolls the virtues of Hamilton's steel industry and so on. I would remind members opposite that the steel has to come from somewhere. It is dug out of the ground in mines in rural Canada. It would behoove members opposite, especially members of the NDP, to remember this.
As the final government speaker of the day regarding the topic at hand, I would like to talk about why the motion should not be supported by the House.
We heard from the relevant minister, the parliamentary secretary and several government members about how successful our economic action plan has been. We are talking about over 770,000 net new jobs, 90% of those being full-time jobs. As of last Friday, it was shown that our GDP continues to grow, in fact beating market expectations. There are 350,000 more Canadians working in Canada today than at any previous point in history. Poverty for seniors, adults and children has declined from 40 year highs under the previous Liberal government to historic lows. Over one million Canadians have been removed from the tax rolls completely because of our low-tax plan for jobs and growth, and that is truly a remarkable achievement. These are all indications that Canadians are better off under our stable national majority Conservative government. Now is certainly not the time for risky economic experiments.
Members opposite sneer and laugh when we bring up their proposed $21 billion carbon tax as if that is some big joke. It is not a joke. It was in their platform, that $21 billion comes from them. Canadians are going to know that if the NDP had its way, it would do what it does best, pick their pockets.
Canadians understand that the global economy is fragile. There are challenges around the world. We can see what happens when a country's finances get out of control by looking at what is going on in Europe on our TV screens every night. That is why Canadians voted in the last election to put their trust in our Conservative Prime Minister's low-tax plan for jobs and growth.
The changes to EI that were announced in economic action plan 2012 continue through with the good work we are doing to ensure that Canadians are always better off working than not. Under the new working while on claim pilot project, we are encouraging EI claimants to pursue and accept all opportunities for work. As is always the case, we are working to ensure our programs fulfill our goals.
I talked earlier about the constituency I represent. My people are free people. They farm. They log. They ranch. They are self-employed. They are proud to be free, proud to be self-reliant and proud to be independent. The dignity of work is something that my constituents truly appreciate.
I can assure the House that under this new program the majority of people who work while on a claim will benefit and will be better off. The changes we are proposing are designed to help Canadians get back to work more quickly.
As a result of the strong leadership of our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance, who by all accounts is considered the best finance minister in the world, Canada is leading the G7 in job growth. I never tire of saying 770,000 net new jobs, most of them permanent jobs. However, we are still currently experiencing job and labour shortages in many occupations and regions of this country. In short, we cannot afford to have Canadians sitting at home unaware of the demand for their talent and skills. This skills and labour shortage will only be magnified by our aging population and by competition from other nations for skilled workers.
This is part of the reason the government is working to coordinate the temporary foreign worker program with the EI program to help connect unemployed Canadians with available jobs in their local area.
The jobs are out there. According to Stats Canada this spring, there were over 250,000 job vacancies each month across the country. In my own constituency, the potash mines and the trucking industry are crying for workers. Indeed, when one goes further west from where I am in Saskatchewan, and in Alberta in particular, worker shortages are of great concern to employers and governments.
We know that some employers are hiring temporary foreign workers while Canadians with the same skills in the same community or region are claiming EI benefits. For example, in January, 350 people in Alberta who cited significant experience as food counter attendants had claimed for EI benefits. At the same time, employers in the province were approved to hire more than 1,200 foreign workers for the same jobs. In Ontario, over 2,200 general farm workers submitted EI claims while employers received approval to hire over 1,500 foreign nationals for the same occupation.
We believe Canadians should always have the first opportunity to fill jobs in their local communities. How will we ensure that Canadians are given the first crack? By linking EI and the temporary foreign worker program we will be alerting Canadians to these job opportunities through the job alert system. We are also increasing the frequency with which we are sending out job alerts to Canadians on EI. Before, it was three job alerts every two weeks. Now it will be two job alerts every day. As we face unprecedented skills shortages across the country, it will be critical that we work to help Canadians find available jobs and keep them.
EI is an important program here in Canada and will continue to be. These improvements introduce much needed common sense efforts to help Canadians get back to work faster.
Let me be clear. These changes are not about forcing people to accept work outside their own area or to take jobs for which they are not suited. For example, we will not be asking those with manufacturing experience in Ontario to move to Alberta to work in food services. We will not be asking administrative professionals in British Columbia to move to Ontario to work on farms, although I must say, as a farm owner, working on farms is very often a rewarding and pleasant occupation. What we are doing is connecting Canadians with local jobs that require a similar skill set. The suite of changes we announced in the economic action plan 2012 will support Canadians in their return to work.
Beginning in 2005, under the Liberals, the previous version of the working while on claim pilot tested to see if allowing claimants to earn more while receiving EI benefits would encourage people to accept all available work. Under the previous pilot project, EI recipients who had part-time or occasional work had their benefits reduced dollar for dollar once they earned $75 or 40% of their weekly benefit amount, whichever was greater. To put it another way, once they hit this cap their wages were clawed back 100% from their benefits. This discouraged many of them from accepting available work beyond the 40% threshold. Why would Canadians accept further work if they were not going to be paid for it? This often meant that after one day of work while on claim, working additional hours did not pay at all.
We need to encourage Canadians to work, not discourage them. We know that the previous pilot did discourage people from accepting more work because of the cap that existed on how much they could earn, so we changed that and removed the cap. We are building on what we learned from that pilot and are making further improvements to work incentives through this more moderate clawback rate over a greater range of earnings. I would remind members that the purpose of a pilot is to do a test. Under this new pilot, EI claimants can keep more of what they earn.
The choice is clear. There are two paths being proposed here today. There is our low-tax plan for jobs and growth, which is clearly working, and then there is the option put forward by the NDP, a return to the failed policies of Pierre Trudeau, with high taxes and out of control spending. I think it would be wise for members to stand up for Canada and support our economic action plan.
The motion is factually incorrect. It fails to take into account all the changes we are making to EI to ensure Canadians are always better off working than not. It is contrary to our economic action plan, which is delivering. For these reasons, the government will be voting against the motion.
Business of Supply October 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's comments about the nature of work. He talked about people often having multiple sources of income as if that is a bad thing, or the nature of a job being much more flexible and different.
My question is a sincere one. The nature of work in 2012 is very different from 1912. We now have the Internet, mobility, the ability to work from home and all of those things, especially in my constituency where many people have multiple sources of income and are happy to do it. They log, farm or perhaps work at a local tourist lodge and their lives are built around that kind of economic activity.
I would like a comment from him about the nature of work in 2012. Perhaps there are more opportunities out there than in the older model that was in place, let us say, in 1912.
Business of Supply October 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, when referring to the speech by the member for Churchill, talked about the “hits” to the natural resource economy in her constituency. I would point out to the House that Manitoba is under the dead thumb of an NDP government and many of the difficulties in the natural resources industry in her constituency are because of NDP policies, primarily in the mining industry. In fact, Manitoba's mining industry performance is among the worst in the country.
Can she comment on the effect of the dead hand of Manitoba provincial NDP government policies on the dismal performance of the Manitoba mining sector and, hence, the effect on employment in her constituency?
New democratic Party of Canada September 25th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, four years ago our Conservative government campaigned against the Liberal Party's plan to impose a job-killing carbon tax on Canadians. In that campaign Canadians agreed with us and sent us back to this place with a strengthened mandate.
A year ago, our Conservative government was once again campaigning against an opposition party's plan to impose a job-killing carbon tax on Canadian families. This time it was the NDP and its plan to raise $21 billion in new revenue. In that campaign Canadians agreed with us and sent back a strong, stable, national Conservative majority government.
Now the new NDP leader is proposing a carbon tax that would go even further than the one rejected by Canadians just over a year ago.
Our Conservative government will once again stand with Canadians and fight this job-killing carbon tax that would increase the price of everything including gas, groceries and electricity.
Natural Resources September 19th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader dismisses the role that the natural resource sector plays in the Canadian economy. He claims that the strength of Canada's natural resources sector has been at the expense of manufacturing.
The economy of my riding is based on natural resource development, including agriculture, forestry, mining, energy and commercial fishing. As our natural resource sector expands to meet global demand, the growth will be reflected in the manufacturing sector. Indeed, in my own riding, I have a number of small manufacturing enterprises that serve the mining and energy sector.
We are seeing prosperity spread across Canada as a result of the demand for our natural resources. Recently, Statistics Canada reported that Canada's industry is operating at 81% of its capacity, 11% higher than the low point of the global economic downturn.
The NDP would stop the spread of this prosperity with its carbon tax schemes. What is more deplorable are the attempts by the NDP leader to pit region against region. We must grow our economy and ensure both a strong natural resources sector and a strong manufacturing sector. The two go hand in hand.
Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act September 17th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I listened with jaw-dropping amazement to the comments from the member for Churchill as she blamed the federal government for every ill in Manitoba. I hate to break it to her, but there is an NDP government in Manitoba right now that is responsible for the high crime rate that is in Manitoba right now. Winnipeg is the violent crime capital of Canada. If the NDP government cared about victims, cared about citizens, it would do something about it. The NDP government of Manitoba is implementing the policies that the gang across the way would want to implement. We have seen what the results are.
I would like her to comment on the Manitoba government, a government with which she has some familiarity. I would like her to comment on the abysmal failure of the NDP policies in Manitoba in curbing and controlling violent crime.
Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act September 17th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend's comments and, with all due respect, I found them very insulting to Canadians who live on low incomes. It is almost as if people who have low incomes are automatically guaranteed to commit crimes, which is appalling.
In my constituency, there are many low-income constituents, people who get along very well on what we would consider low incomes and yet the crime rate in my constituency is very low. Why is that? I would argue that those people have the right values.
What role does my hon. friend think people's values play, regardless of their incomes, in terms of their propensity to commit crimes? How important does he think an individual's values are?
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 18th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend for her great work as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
I have listened to members opposite, especially members of the NDP. They have never talked about how to create wealth, but they are good at talking about how to spend money. Their solution to every problem in government is to spend more and more money. We have seen how that particular approach has taken the European economies, especially Greece, Italy, Spain and so on.
Could the parliamentary secretary please inform the House why it is so important for Canada to not only keep its financial house in order, but to make its financial position even stronger?