Wayne Easter

[Recognition of Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation Act, March 24th, 2016]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-253, an Act to Recognize Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today a private member's bill entitled “an act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation”.

I should note that this legislation was previously introduced by my colleague the member for Charlottetown.

The purpose of the legislation is to place in statute the recognition extended by proclamation of the government of the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, in September 1996, namely that Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, be recognized as the birthplace of Confederation.

As we approach the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017, the legislation I am tabling today affirms a significant historical event in our nation's history, and it is a measure I believe all members in this House can support.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Committees, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance, entitled “Final Report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance Regarding its Consultations in Advance of the 2016 Budget”.

In a very short time frame, the committee heard from 92 witnesses, with an additional 175 written submissions. I want to thank the witnesses, my colleagues here, and my colleagues across the way for working so hard to complete the report in such a tight time frame.

I must also congratulate and thank the clerk, the analysts, and the management team at the Library of Parliament for really going beyond the call of duty to adhere to this extremely tight time frame to table this report today.

[Committees of the House, February 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance entitled, “Our Consultations in Advance of the 2016 Budget: The Interim Report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance”. An interim report at this stage is somewhat unusual, however, the committee wanted the House and the minister to know the broad range of topics the committee heard at their earliest possible time and provide a link to those submissions.

We know the budget is on March 22. We will present our final report before then, on March 11. However, we wanted the minister and the House to be aware of the great presentations and submissions that came to committee.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, part of our strategy outlined in the election campaign is for those people who contribute to the employment insurance system. We have to try to strive to increase the number of people who qualify. Some cannot for various reasons.

Beyond that, when we look at the total package that the Liberal Party ran on, we find that there is greater advantage for skills training. The list goes on in terms of trying to find other means of ensuring that those people who do not fall under the system have the social safety net and the economic means to be able to look after their families.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the reason it was put in the consolidated fund in the first place is because that was the recommendation by the Auditor General and we had to do it.

There is a book calculation as a result, following that, but we are here for the workers. We are here to try to create growth and prosperity in the country, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, finally we get the numbers, or maybe. I do know sometimes the NDP's math leaves a little bit to be desired.

However, in the context of the 360 hours, $1.2 billion, this is something that the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour will have to grapple with.

We look at the number of things we have said we would do under the Employment Insurance Act: the parental care leave, the caregivers, the doing away with the five-week pilot project, and the list goes on. The minister and the government cannot be locked into hours when we start. We said we would go to the regional hours for qualifying, but we do not want to be locked into that because we want to be able to do all the other things that we have committed to do and we have to prioritize those.

For that reason I still cannot support the 360 hours.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Central Nova.

I am quite pleased to speak to the motion that suggests certain changes be made to the employment insurance system. I agree with many of the changes that are in the NDP motion, with one major exception, and that is the 360-hour component.

I tried to find out from a number of sources what that 360 hours would cost the system. If a government is going to make decisions, it has to make them in a reasonable and responsible way. I asked members opposite the question, but they did not have an answer. I have not been able to find it in any of the material related to the NDP motion. Someone could perhaps get up later and give us the numbers. Stating 360 hours, without having the numbers to go along with that, is not the proper way to change legislation.

Beyond that, many of the points that the NDP made in the motion were in our election platform, and some of them are in the mandate letter to the Minister of Employment. We will be moving forward on those points.

People who have to use the EI system want it to be as efficient as possible, and that is why I am opposed to 360 hours. In our discussions with workers, their concern was related to the initial qualifying hours of over 900. We will be moving to allow regional rates, which are lesser hours and dependent on the regional EI or job rate, to be the qualifying areas. In that way, workers will be treated more fairly.

The difficulty that the economy is facing at the moment has put a lot of pressure on the employment insurance system. The Minister of Finance announced the new numbers in his mini economic update. Difficulty in the energy sector in this country is putting pressure on the system. Therefore, there is a greater need for the employment insurance system to operate effectively to get a social and economic safety net into the hands of workers. What is really unusual is that we are hearing calls from Alberta on the need to have the employment system work effectively.

I want to turn to Alberta for a minute. The duration of EI benefits has increased in four economic regions in Alberta. The number of weeks available in hard-hit regions in Alberta has increased by five weeks, to the maximum entitlement nationally of 45 weeks. If we compare December 2014 to February 2016, qualification for EI regular benefits in the northern Alberta EI region has dropped, while the maximum entitlement has increased to 45 weeks, matching the highest level of support in the country.

I want to make sure that the House and everyone knows that the energy difficulty in Alberta, the falling prices, is being caused by many global factors, and also in part by the fact that Alberta is landlocked in terms of getting our energy to market. That is posing greater difficulties for workers in a lot of regions of Canada, and mine in particular. There are a lot of people from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, who work in the oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and in the Peace River area of B.C. They are all being impacted as well, as a result, and they need to qualify for employment insurance.

When we look at the Alberta EI numbers, we really have to factor in the cost to workers in the rest of the country, not just in that threshold of numbers. The number of people without work in Prince Edward Island and other areas of the country who travelled to work in Alberta and elsewhere are in the other regions' numbers.

It is important that we do everything we can. That is what the Minister of Employment is trying to do with the changes we will be bringing in. Many of them are in the NDP motion.

As we said in our platform and the mandate letter for the minister, we will reverse the 2012 changes to the employment insurance system that forced unemployed workers to move away from their communities and take lower-paying jobs. We will change that. We will develop more flexible parental benefits. We will be easing access to EI support for caregivers. The list goes on.

However, there is one point I want to make with regard to my region and an absolutely pathetic move by the previous government. In trying to support the regional minister at the time, from my province, the government created two EI zones in Prince Edward Island. That has to be fixed too. I am encouraging the government to fix that along with the rest. It is not in the mandate letter I note, but it has to be fixed.

Here is an example of what happens in a situation like that. We are a country of seasonal industries. Some talk about the need to work year round. It would be great, but we are in a country where it snows, freezes, and gets too cold for some industries. Therefore, they have to shut down for a while. The employers of those industries need their workers to come back and start when the season kicks in again, because they are the skilled workers who are trained and know how to work in their field. They want them back. The employment insurance system that these workers pay into is there to give them the safety net so they can have income, provide for their families, and spend their money is their communities in the off-season.

That is what the employment insurance system is there for. It is not, as the Conservatives try to pretend, because people are lazy and do not want to work. People lose their jobs for many reasons. As well, when businesses shut down they need that safety net. These workers are very important for seasonal industries.

I will give an example of the two zones. On Riverdale Road in my riding, one worker is in the Charlottetown zone. He needs more hours and gets less benefits. A worker on the west side of Riverside Road is in the rural zone. What happens? They both work at the same plant. They both work in a seasonal industry in New Glasgow. The one on the rural side qualifies for EI. The one on the Charlottetown side does not. That is a sad situation that the previous government put in place, which I am asking my government, my party, to fix, to get back to one zone in Prince Edward Island.

Let me close. I know my time is limited. I will quote from the Progressive Economics Forum. There are a lot of labour groups who are part of that group. In its point number one, it says this:

Repeal the 2012/13 EI changes. This includes but is not limited to the punitive and discriminatory job search rules, a detrimental ‘best weeks’ calculation for low income workers, removal of the extended benefit pilot project, erosion of the ‘working while on claim’ benefit for those taking casual work while unemployed, and the politically-motivated addition of new EI regions in Prince Edward Island and Canada’s North.

That includes a list right across the country. It is asking the government to do most of what we said we would do in the election.

The NDP motion does not even go as far as we said we would in the election, but it includes that 360 hours, which is a mistake. Otherwise, I could support the motion.

I cannot support the motion, but I support the principle of it. As we move forward with this party and this government, we will indeed make the changes that we committed to in the election and that are outlined in the mandate letter.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to a point that was made by the Conservative member for Carleton earlier. I was sitting here almost fuming listening to his remarks.

The member for Carleton talked about 360 hours, and I disagree with that setting in the NDP motion, but the member's remarks were nothing but disingenuous to workers in this country. To claim that the NDP proposal of 360 hours would be paying people not to work, and that they would work nine weeks and draw 50 weeks is malarkey. What it goes to show is that it comes from a mentality that existed within the previous government that if people were penalized enough, they would be forced to work, and if they were left without income, they would be forced to work. That is not the mentality that I know the NDP has or this party has. We believe in incentives.

Does the member opposite feel the same way, that the party over there is disingenuous to workers in this country, who deserve better respect?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed most of the member's remarks. In fact, I agree with a lot of the motion that is before us. However, there is a glaring problem, and that relates to the 360 hours being universal.

The member said in her speech that the 360 hours, according to the NDP, is affordable. I looked everywhere for the calculations behind the cost to the system of that 360 hours. Will it mean increased premiums? What will it mean?

The member opposite claims it is affordable. Could she give the exact cost figure for what the 360 hours would mean to the system as a whole?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kenora talked about his region and the high unemployment rate, but I know his region is like a lot of Canada. There is a lot of diversity in the country. In his area, there are certainly a lot of seasonal industries, such as mining, tourism, and other such industries. I wonder if he could spell out to the House how important the changes that the Liberal government is proposing are to the seasonal industries and their health and prosperity in our country.