14673 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 226 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, June 8, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 8, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 226 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 226 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 226 (Version officielle) 147 226 08 06 2015 2015/06/08 11:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 11 a.m.

Prayers PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] Corrections and Conditional Release Act The House resumed from April 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-642,

an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (high profile offender) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-642. Second reading The Speaker : There being no other members rising, I will turn to the hon. member for Saint John for his five-minute right of reply. Mr. Rodney Weston (Saint John, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to stand in the House today to close the debate on second reading of my private member's bill, Bill C-642 . I feel very confident that my colleagues will see the wisdom of these proposed amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The private member's bill will amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so as to require Correctional Service Canada to disclose certain key information regarding the statutory release of a high-profile offender. This would be accomplished by posting the required information as prescribed by the bill on the service's website, and also by providing written notice with the disclosure of the information to the victim or victims. The legislation would also provide for community consultation related to the proposed release.

I introduced the bill in order to fulfill a commitment that I made to the citizens of my community after they were exposed to a situation that many felt was a major injustice in 2013. The injustice I speak of today was the release of three high-profile offenders into a halfway house in Saint John without any prior notice whatsoever to the community. This could happen in any community throughout Canada that is home to a halfway house that houses high-profile offenders prior to their full release.

I want to say at the outset that I believe we in society have an obligation to do our part to reintegrate individuals back into society once they have paid their dues. However, it cannot be without looking after the mental and physical well-being of law-abiding citizens. I made a commitment at the time to try to ensure this situation was not repeated in Saint John , or in any other community throughout Canada.

I felt it was important for communities to have the information they needed in advance to allow the police and the citizens to be prepared, and to ensure that the victims were aware about the people who had violated them as well. As lawmakers, we have an obligation to listen to our constituents and to act in the interests of the majority. I undertook, in 2013, to address the needs and concerns of the people in my riding. They were concerned and looking to us to provide them with the protection and information they needed to feel good about walking the streets of Saint John .

Bill C-642 would not interfere with the rights of the inmate being released. It would not change the fact that they are being released. It would not deny the protection provided by our Canadian justice and correctional system. What it would do is to give the citizens of our country, and the victims of crime, more information and a sense that they are being treated fairly. It would make the release of certain dangerous offenders part of the public record. It would not be the responsibility of the police in local communities to decide if certain information should be made public.

This would give the public and the victims the knowledge so that certain individuals would not be able to quietly, and under the veil of secrecy, enter their community and possibly reoffend before the community even knows they are there. I want to point out that this change would not apply to all offenders being released into our communities. It would only apply to the most dangerous, as defined by

schedule I of the act, or if the commissioner determines that the offence dynamics have elicited or have the potential to elicit a community reaction in the form of significant public or media attention. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for having taken the time to listen to the bill and consider it. I want to thank all members for taking the time to consider the bill. It is very important to the citizens of my community, and it certainly would make a difference going forward. The Deputy Speaker : Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 10, 2015, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

Suspension of Sitting The Deputy Speaker : Given the end of private members' business at this time, the House will stand suspended until noon, 12 o'clock. (The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:04 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed (The House resumed at 12 p.m.) Government Orders Business of Supply (1200) [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance Premiums The Deputy Speaker : Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, 2015, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be now distributed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Translation ] Mr.

Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) moved: Motion That, in the opinion of the House, employment insurance premiums paid by employers and workers must be used exclusively to finance benefits, as defined by the Employment Insurance Act, for unemployed workers and their families and that, consequently, the government should: (

a) protect workers' and employers' premiums from political interference; (

b) improve program accessibility to ensure that unemployed workers and their families can access it; and (

c) abandon its plan, as set out in Budget 2015, to set rates unilaterally, in order to maintain long-term balance in the fund while improving accessibility. He said: Mr. Speaker, we often hear members say, “I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to such and such a subject.” I rise today not because it pleases me but out of necessity. I suspect it is that necessity that has prompted so many of us to express an interest in speaking to this motion today, a motion that could only have been moved by the New Democratic Party.

As we will see throughout the presentations being made today, both Liberal and Conservative governments have a dismal record on employment insurance. I wish to announce at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour so that as many people as possible can have their say and discuss the ins and outs of this measure, with the hope that through the exchange of ideas and as a result of discussion and debate, we might have a unanimous vote, when the time comes, in favour of workers who sometimes face the unfortunate reality of being unemployed.

We want employment insurance to be there to get them through those difficult times. This motion is especially crucial considering that it directly affects thousands and thousands of people all across Quebec and Canada. No one in the House can claim that they do not know someone, whether a family member or friend, who has been affected recently by a job loss, given the current economic situation. The motion put forward by the NDP today is the beginning of meaningful reparation.

It is a first step towards creating a fairer, more equitable society, one that reflects the NDP's policies and vision for future development. I would like to read the general thrust of the motion: That, in the opinion of the House, employment insurance premiums paid by employers and workers must be used exclusively to finance benefits, as defined by the Employment Insurance Act, for unemployed workers and their families... That seems pretty obvious to me. We are talking about an employment insurance plan. Is the point of insurance not to voluntarily pay premiums in order to be prepared when catastrophe strikes?

We hope it does not. We all readily agree to pay for car insurance, for example, but hope never to need to file a claim. The same goes for home insurance. We are prepared to pay for our entire lives to protect this colossal investment, while hoping never to need to file a claim. However, when it comes to employment insurance, the Conservative government is completely distorting the meaning of insurance. Instead of attacking unemployment, which is the main problem, the Conservatives have been attacking the unemployed ever since the 2013 reform.

The Conservatives would have us believe that using employment insurance in order to work a few weeks a year and then take the rest of the year off has become a way of life for many Canadians. That is totally ridiculous. I have a statistic that says otherwise: the average duration of employment insurance benefits is less than 20 weeks. It is clear to us that people want to work all year. In the famous words of our Quebecois singer, Félix Leclerc, “The best way to kill a man is to pay him for doing nothing.” That is not the problem with employment insurance.

This is not a question of identifying those who want to be paid for doing nothing. What are we now proposing to ensure that this general objective is achieved? Point (

a) of the motion proposes to “protect workers' and employers' premiums from political interference”. It is fairly clear that there has been interference over the years. Oddly enough, the employment insurance system will turn 75 in 2015. It is not unreasonable to think that the system may need to be adjusted given that the job market has really diversified in 75 years. That is not the approach taken by the Liberals and the Conservatives over the years. With each reform, reorganization or re-engineering—call it what you will—the objective was the same.

(1205) The objective was always to reduce services and benefits and to generate colossal surpluses in the employment insurance fund, which disappeared and became a line in general revenues. Here are some figures. I am not going to give many because I do not have a lot of time. The Conservative government's last budget reported a surplus of approximately $1.4 billion. This budget obviously includes employment insurance revenues because they are now part of the consolidated revenue fund. The “employment insurance” line alone for 2015 shows $3.4 billion in accumulated surpluses. Somehow $2 billion is missing.

For months and months the government has tried to tell us that this money is not used for anything else. You do not need a business school course or a degree in economics to figure out that the $2 billion has been diverted. The Conservatives keep telling us that that $2 billion has not been used for other purposes, that it is a partial reimbursement of the $9 billion they had to invest during the economic crisis in 2008 and that they are recouping that money over the years as surpluses build up. I really want to believe that, but supposing it is the case, let us take their reasoning to its logical end.

Before the government had to inject $9 billion into the employment insurance fund to pay out a minimum amount of benefits, the fund had a $57 billion surplus. If we subtract $9 billion from $57 billion, then there should be $48 billion left somewhere. However, that money has completely disappeared and has been used by successive Liberal and Conservative governments for other purposes. There is every reason to believe that most of the funding for the unpopular and unfair measures, such as income splitting, that the Conservatives proposed in the most recent budget is coming from the EI surplus.

Obviously, the Liberals and the Conservatives could argue that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. This is yet another debate that went as far as the Supreme Court because the major unions persevered and continued the fight. The ruling indicates that employment insurance contributions are now part of the general revenue fund. The NDP believes that while it may now be legal to divert that money, it is still not the right thing to do.

We need to make sure that individuals, employers and workers who contribute to employment insurance are able to get the services that they paid for, especially since, like us, these people pay their taxes so that the government has the money to provide the services it wants to provide. People are being double taxed when both their EI contributions and the taxes they pay are being used to fund government measures, many of them solely designed to win votes. We need to protect those contributions. Only one party has introduced a very clear bill to this effect in the House.

My colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour had the pleasure and honour of introducing it. I am talking about Bill C-605 , which sets out very clear criteria for protecting EI contributions. Once premiums are protected, what will happen to this tremendous economic lever? Obviously we will increase access to the program. Right now, fewer than 4 out of 10 workers who contributed to the program qualify for benefits at the worst time in their lives.

If an insurance company guaranteed its customers that if they encountered a problem, a maximum of four of them would be eligible for benefits, I do not think that company would be around for long. However, that is exactly what the Conservative government is proposing, and those numbers only seem to get worse instead of better. We need to increase accessibility. In (

c) we are calling on the government to abandon its plan, as set out in budget 2015, to set rates unilaterally, in order to maintain long-term balance in the fund while improving accessibility.

(1210) I know that my time is up, so I will stop there. I still have a lot of statistics to share, but I am sure that I will have the opportunity to talk about them as we get to questions and other speeches. [ English ] Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech on employment insurance. We heard a lot of talk in Ontario about increasing CPP, which would increase payroll taxes and premiums for job creators and everyday workers.

Do the member and his party support an increase in EI premiums, which would be another increase in payroll taxes, and lead to a lot of people losing their jobs across Canada? [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin : 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. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to broaden the discussion somewhat in regards to employment insurance. Manitoba often talks about the low unemployment rate, which is based on actual numbers of people on EI.

However, many Canadians may not be aware that first nations communities are not factored into employment insurance statistics. I would suggest, if done properly, that would have a serious impact in terms of the level of the unemployment rate. In terms of the importance of the statistics that Statistics Canada produces, they should be more reflective of reality. I think this is important, and we should be looking at some changes to that effect. I wonder if the member might want to provide some comments in regards to that. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin : 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. (1215) [ English ] Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Trois-Rivières , for his leadership on this issue and for the hard work that he has put in to make sure that Canadians understand the damage that the Liberals and Conservatives have done to the important program of employment insurance. Does the member think it is satisfactory that we have a fund in this country that is supposed to provide support to workers, families and communities when they are unemployed through no fault of their own, yet eligibility has dropped below 4 in 10?

In other words, of the 1.3 million unemployed in this country, a small fraction of them are actually eligible for support from this program. Would the member not agree that this is something we have to deal with right now? [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin : 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. [ English ] Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get up and speak for a few minutes on this important issue of employment insurance and the fact that there needs to be a viable program in this country that provides support to unemployed workers, their families, and their communities. There was such a fund, until the Liberals got their hands on it back in the mid-90s. At that point, 80% of unemployed Canadians had access to this fund. By the time the Liberals got through with it, that had been reduced to 45%.

Now, since the Conservatives have had their go at it, it has been reduced to 36% or 37% of unemployed Canadians who actually have an opportunity to access these funds. I want to talk a bit about that, because that is really at the heart of why we are dealing with this motion today.

It is to not only protect the fund, and I will explain why that is important, but to make sure that the account is set up in a way that truly does the work necessary and does what employment insurance was originally established to do, which is provide support for unemployed workers, provide support for parents on parental leave, provide sick benefits, and even provide training for people to bridge the period between jobs. Let me talk for a second about why access has come to be such a problem. As I indicated earlier, before the Liberals got at this account, 80% of unemployed workers had access to it.

Under their reforms, EI access fell to below 50%. The Conservatives saw an opportunity and have continued to reduce access. As recently as 2012, they brought in some major changes that have particularly affected seasonal industries in Atlantic Canada, which is my part of the world. They made it particularly difficult in a number of different industries that depended on shorter term, seasonal work to the point that in July 2013, fund eligibility reached 36.5%. It is up a bit now and is a little closer to 40%. One reason for that is the high level of unemployment in this country.

Only 60% of new mothers receive maternity benefits, mostly because they have insufficient hours under these Conservative changes. On top of those eligibility issues, unemployed workers and their employers have a problem with Service Canada. Of the applicants for EI, 25% are waiting beyond the supposed service standard of 28 days. It is now in excess of 40 days. We raised this issue last fall. We have actually raised it for the past two years, but last fall, the minister responsible stood in this place and talked about how his parliamentary secretary had done a study on this work and had made some changes.

We asked him to table the study to show us what the results were, and all of a sudden, that study was not good enough to be released. We still have not seen it. What we do know is that people seeking unemployment insurance benefits are still having to wait over 40 days.

(1220) As I indicated, the government made a number of changes in 2012 in terms of eligibility for benefits. One of the particular issues was related to the Social Security Tribunal. There used to be an appeals process that was tripartite. The worker had a representative at the appeal, the employer had a representative at the appeal, and there was an independent chairperson at the appeal. In other words, there was due process. There was justice. Workers could expect that they would have an opportunity to have their cases heard. That process has been completely revamped.

Now there is an official within the department who looks at this. That individual does not share information. A lot of it is done behind closed doors. The worst thing of all is that at the end of 2014, there was a backlog of 11,000 cases. Not only was the process turned upside down, with workers no longer having access to due process, but now the process is not even going forward, so these appeals are not being heard. The other point I want to make is in regard to the EI fund. My colleague from Trois-Rivières said that we have tabled a bill in this House to protect the EI fund. Why are we doing that?

Why do we have to protect the sanctity of that fund? It is because the Liberals took $54 billion in the EI fund, and they used it for other purposes. In other words, the money that was put into that fund by workers and employers to provide employment insurance when workers lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, was appropriated to other places. The Conservatives came along and thought that it was pretty neat to have access to that fund, and they tried that too. The Conservatives went ahead and had their way with over $3 billion in that fund, all the while, of course, not changing premiums.

Now we have a situation where there is less money in the fund, Even so, now the current government is proposing to reduce premiums next year. If we even left the premiums at their current level, we could provide EI benefits to another 130,000 unemployed workers. We think that makes a lot of sense. My point is that the EI fund should be managed independently. Decisions about premiums should be independent of government. They should not be influenced by the political whims of the government of the day. We have seen the damage that can be done as a result of what the Liberals and Conservatives have done.

It is wrong. That is why we are proposing this motion and why we have talked with Canadians about how under an NDP government, we will certainly make those changes. I want to go back to what we want. We want to ensure that more Canadians and middle-class families have access to the support they need if they lose their jobs, need to take parental leave, become ill, or need to care for loved ones under the compassionate care leave program. That was extended in this budget to six months, which we support. We pushed for that. However, the eligibility problems are still the same: it is accessible by very few people.

People caring for ALS patients are unable to have access to that fund. The NDP wants to make sure that the premiums workers and employers pay to the fund are actually used to provide EI benefits for the unemployed, special benefits for families, and training for Canadians. That is why I had the pleasure of tabling Bill C-605 to put a fence around that fund. We want to make sure that Canadian workers and businesses are involved in creating an EI fund that actually works for them.

When the current government made those five massive changes in 2012, it did so without any consultation with the Atlantic provinces, with Quebec, or with any other provinces. That had a very detrimental impact, and the provinces said so to the federal government.

(1225) We are committed to working with the provinces, to working with workers and their representatives, and to working with employers to make sure that we have an EI fund that is protected, that is independent, and that actually supports working people. Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully, and it was not tough to hear the hon. member across speak in the House. It did not need any translation either. I want to ask the member, as a representative of the New Democratic Party, a question so we get it on the record today.

Is it still the position of the New Democratic Party that people in this country only have to work for 45 days, and if they become unemployed, they should be eligible for full EI benefits? Is that still the NDP's position? Mr. Robert Chisholm : Mr. Speaker, I do not make any apologies for feeling passionate about working people and about the way the government is treating working people and the way the Liberal Party has been treating working people in this country. I make no apologies for getting a little wound up about that. Let me tell the House that for sure.

I can commit to that member and to those members opposite that when we are in power after October 19, we will work with workers, with employers, and with the provinces to make sure that we have an EI fund that is sustainable, that is independent, and that actually serves the needs of workers, their families, and employers in this country. Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there are a number of statements the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour had that I fully agree with, and certainly access is one I fully agree with.

We have to do a better job as a nation in looking after those who find themselves out of work right now. However, specifically on the EI premium rate, could I get his opinion on this? If we go back to 1993, employers and employees were paying $3.02 per $100 earned in EI premiums. The unemployment rate was 12.5%. As a matter of fact, the Conservatives had proposed to go to $3.20. Twelve times since 1993, that rate has come down by a nickel, a dime, or whatever it may have been, to about $1.78. I think that is what it was when we left power in 2006, so it did come down considerably.

Also, the unemployment rate came down from 12.5% to 6.5%. I have two questions. Does my colleague see that we have to be fair both to employers who create jobs and to employees? Is it at a rate now where we should not go lower? That is what I am hearing in this context. It should be about keeping that fund the same and improving access. I think we agree on that point.

(1230) Mr. Robert Chisholm : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso . This is an issue he knows something about. In 1997, many Liberals in Atlantic Canada got tossed out on their ear as a result of some of the unilateral changes they were making to employment insurance. He knows that, and I would have thought he had learned much from that experience. The difficulty we have now is that we have a fund, and both the Conservatives and the Liberals are proposing to give cuts to employers to create jobs, something that should come out of general revenues.

They would be taking money that should be used to provide support for working Canadians who are suddenly unemployed. We need to ensure that in terms of rates, they are sufficient to ensure that Canadians, when they are unemployed and need support, are able to receive that support. Those decisions should not be political. They should be independent and done in fairness, with a sense of equity for employers and workers. Mr. Scott Armstrong (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion brought forward by the member for Trois-Rivières regarding access to employment insurance. Our government recognizes that EI is a vital resource for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The opposition is trying to distract from its irresponsible scheme that would have people work simply for 45 days and then collect employment insurance for the rest of the year. The high-tax opposition's 45-day work year would cost $6 billion and be paid for by job-killing payroll taxes levied on workers and the businesses that employ them.

As members know, employment insurance is designed to provide temporary income support to help Canadians and their families withstand financial pressure when they lose their jobs. Our employment program also works by offering training and support to help unemployed Canadians return to work. We know that Canadians want to get back to work as soon as possible. They want to earn a good living. They want to support their families and be productive members in their communities. To foster a strong, competitive workforce, our employment insurance program must succeed in helping them find a new job.

What we are striving for is economic growth, while ensuring long-term prosperity for all Canadians. I can assure members that the employment insurance situation of Canadians is a matter of great concern for this government. The result of this hard work has been clear. Since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, Canada has recovered all the jobs that were lost during that period. We have one of the strongest job creation records in the G7 and one of the best in the developed world.

We have created over 1.2 million net new jobs since the pit of the economic recession in 2009, 80% of those jobs are in the private sector. Of those jobs, 80% are full-time and 65% are in high wage industries. However, the recovery has varied across the country and across segments of the population. By helping Canadians connect with available jobs and by putting a priority on skills and training, we are ensuring continued economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity. The employment insurance program is an important part of this success.

It plays a key role in helping Canadians stay attached to the labour market and return to work as quickly as possible. With all due respect, I do not believe the members opposite know all that they need to when it comes to accessibility for employment insurance. First, I want to put to rest the notion that only a small percentage of unemployed Canadians receive EI benefits. According to Statistics Canada's latest survey, in 2013, nearly nine out of ten recently unemployed Canadians who paid into the EI program and lost their job were eligible to receive EI benefits.

That is not a small percentage; that is the vast majority. Further, of those people who were disqualified from EI in 2014, far less than 1%, it was because they failed to search for work or refused to accept suitable work. Members should keep in mind that the entire unemployed population includes many people for whom the program was not designed and therefore does not work well. This includes people who did not work in the previous 12 months, people who quit their jobs to go back to school and people who quit their job without a good reason.

Another myth that I would like to address is that changes to the EI program in recent years have negatively affected eligibility rules. That is untrue. The reality is that changes that were introduced by our government have assisted unemployed Canadians in returning to work and have not restricted any access to EI benefits. It had nothing to do with accessibility. Our government is committed to a program that is more reflective of and more responsive to local labour market conditions.

When we designed the changes, we took into account the unique needs of the different regions and the different circumstances, including seasonal workers. We believe that working is always a better option than collecting employment insurance. We are committed to supporting workers and ensuring that EI enables a strong and competitive workforce for all Canadians in every region of the country from coast to coast. To achieve this, over the last three years we have announced several targeted, common-sense changes to help Canadians in all regions of the country.

These changes were not about restricting access to EI benefits, but rather supporting unemployed workers by giving them the tools that they needed to help them get back to work. As long as workers meet their obligation of seeking suitable employment, they will continue to meet their obligations and will then be eligible to receive their benefits.

(1235) We introduced ways to help Canadians connect with available jobs in their own communities. For example, the job alert system makes it easier for job seekers and employers to connect. More specifically, the job alert service has sent out 514 million alerts to over 775,000 since it was launched in January 2013, making it easier for job seekers and employers to connect. These numbers continue to grow each and every day. We also clarified the long-standing responsibilities of EI claimants to look for work while they are receiving benefits.

Some say the changes hurt claimants living in small communities by forcing them to travel great distances or worse, forcing them to move out of the community altogether. That is simply not true. No one ever has been and no one ever will be forced to move. Claimants are only expected to look for work within their communities. Moreover, personal circumstances are always taken into account, such as the availability of public transportation and access to child care. Those are things that are considered when evaluating each individual employment insurance claim.

However, let us not lose sight of the fact that the purpose of the EI program is to provide temporary income support to those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, while they look for a job or they look to upgrade their skills. It was not, and is not, meant to be an income supplement for those who choose not to look for work for part of the year. However, for those Canadians who live in areas of higher unemployment, or areas where jobs simply do not exist outside seasonal or specialized industries, EI benefits will always continue to be there for them.

We have also implemented the variable best weeks approach to calculating EI benefits. We believe that claimants living in regions with similar labour market conditions should be treated similarly when they look for work. Before variable best weeks was implemented, there were two different methods for calculating this benefit rate. This meant that claimants with similar work patterns and similar labour market conditions would receive different benefit amounts just because they lived in different parts of Canada.

Variable best weeks created a national benefit rate calculation based on the monthly unemployment rate within the claimant's EI region. Further, by making weekly benefit calculations with the regional unemployment rate, EI is more responsive to changes to labour market conditions. In budget 2015, the Government of Canada proposed a $53-million investment to renew the working while on claim project parameters for another year. Working while on claim is designed to help unemployed Canadians get back to work in their local workforce as quickly as possible.

The previous pilot project, which began in August 2012, encouraged EI claimants to accept available work while on EI. This working while on claim project reduces claimant's weekly EI benefits by 50% for each dollar earned while on claim, starting with the first dollar earned. Earnings beyond the threshold of 90% of the weekly insurable earnings used to calculate EI rate of benefits reduce weekly EI benefits dollar for dollar. This 90% cap ensures that claimants cannot earn more while on claim than they were while they were working.

The working while on claim project applies to claimants receiving regular, fishing, compassionate care, parental or parents of critically ill children's benefits, as well as self-employed persons receiving compassionate care, or parents of critically ill children. Initiatives, like the working while on claim pilot project, help ensure the El program remains relevant for today's labour market. According to the 2013-14 employment insurance monitoring and assessment report, they will continue to be effective.

The report demonstrates that the El program continues to support unemployed workers and their families as they transition back to work. The report also reaffirms that eligibility for El remains high. Over 85% of individuals who have paid into the system and have lost their job do no fault of their own are eligible for El benefits. For example, in 2013-14, 1.33 million regular claims accounted for $10 billion in regular benefits. The same year, there were more than 515,000 special claims, such as maternity, parental, sickness, compassionate care, parents of critically ill children.

These resulted in $4.7 billion in special benefits. The numbers do not lie. The El program is clearly a strong support for those who need it and strong support when people need it the most. We know the employment situations of Canadians can change for any number of reasons. Some, like an employer going out of business, are difficult but understandable. Others, like dealing with a critically ill child or a friend or family member's serious illness, are less so.

(1240) Through the employment insurance program, compassionate care benefits provide financial assistance to people who have to be away from work temporarily to care a family member who is gravely ill, with a significant risk of death within 26 weeks. A recent parliamentary committee report on palliative and compassionate care showed that family caregivers provided a substantial amount of care, between 70% and 80% in fact. The report stated that family and friends were the invisible backbone of the Canadian health care system. As such, we want to ensure the program's parameters better reflect this reality.

That is why in economic action plan 2015 we outlined our intention to invest an additional $37 million annually to ensure those caring for gravely ill family members would have the support they needed. Here is what we are doing. We are extending the duration of the compassionate care benefit from the current six weeks to six months as of January 2016. We are also expanding the period of time during which claimants can receive these benefits. These benefits can be used to care for a parent, spouse, partner, child or sibling and extended family members.

We have not forgotten that no program can be successful if its benefits do not reach those who truly need them, which is why we continue to improve how we deliver EI benefits to Canadians. Service Canada monitors EI claims on an ongoing basis to ensure we provide the best possible service to Canadians who are in need of these benefits. Our government has continued to make a range of improvements to ensure we can manage fluctuations in the volume of applications in a cost-effective manner. It is a challenging problem and one we are up to.

It is clear that the EI program continues to be there for those who have paid into the system and those who have lost their job through no fault of their own, including in areas where jobs simply do not exist outside of seasonal or specialized industries. We have spent years implementing changes to make this program more fair and flexible, while continuing to support Canadians when they need it most. We have done so to meet our commitment to a national program that is more reflective of our response to local labour market conditions.

These are responsible, necessary and sensitive efforts to help Canadians get back to work faster. It is good for government, good for the economy, good for employers, but most of all, good for Canadians and their families. (1245) [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : 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. [ English ] Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr.

Speaker, it is amazing how the opposition parties believe that when we invest in tax cuts so employers can hire more people, by lowering payroll taxes like CPP premiums and EI premiums, it somehow is government spending. That is not what it is. We want to ensure we have a fund that meets the needs of people who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The changes we made in 2012, unlike what the opposition claims, had nothing to do with accessibility. We did not change one thing about accessing the program.

In fact, if we look at recent figures from Service Canada, it shows that less than 1% of claimants actually lost their benefits due to turning down work. We are now investing in connecting people to available jobs. There is the job alerts program. We are negotiating with the provinces to try to ensure our labour market development agreements actually get to people earlier, sooner after they lose their jobs, so we can get them back into the workplace as soon as possible. Those are the things the EI fund is being used for, getting people back to work. Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, like my friend and colleague on the human resources committee, the parliamentary secretary, I am a Nova Scotian and I represent a rural community. We have long seen the movement of people from rural communities to urban centres, from Atlantic Canada to opportunities in Saskatchewan and Alberta. However, one thing we had not seen in my time in politics is that sectors in the seasonal economy had not had any problem getting workers. For the first time, we are seeing fish plant operators and tourism operators making applications for temporary foreign workers.

It may be great for the government to say that its only seeing 1% in refusals for those who apply for employment insurance in those seasonal industries. However, what we are seeing is that people in those communities are voting with their feet. They are moving out of those seasonal industries into other industries. We are seeing those communities being impacted; certainly, the businesses are being impacted. Is there any way that the government is measuring, beyond the 1% refusal, as to what kind of impacts these changes have made?

We do not have access to the information, but anecdotally we are hearing that people are leaving the industries.

(1250) Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, I believe that if someone is working a seasonal job where they are forced to collect unemployment in the off-season, and then they have an opportunity for a full-time job, particularly if it is in the same community, it is much better for them to take full-time employment. There are many reasons for why that is, but I will give one right now. When people are collecting unemployment insurance benefits, they are not contributing into the CPP. When they are working all year round, they are contributing into the CPP for 12 months a year.

When they turn 65 and retire, they will have a much larger benefit. They will not be as reliant upon government, and they will be able to be more self-sustainable. With any effort to get people to take full-time, full-year employment instead of seasonal employment, those people will be better off in the short term and they will be better off in the long term. We do need to have workers in the seasonal industries in Atlantic Canada. This is why we need to work with employers, why we need to ensure we connect people who are currently unemployed.

Most of these areas have higher than 10% employment, yet these seasonal industries are having a hard time in attracting workers. We need to ensure that these seasonal workers have the skills they need to apply for these jobs. The unemployed workers who are currently not working in the off-season have the skills they need to do those seasonal jobs as well. That is why we should be using the employment insurance premiums to help fund training that matches with jobs. Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment about the philosophical difference of striving for equal results through social engineering versus striving for equal opportunity through rational and pragmatic policies. More specifically, I mean the incentives to people—the vast majority of people who actually do want to work in Canada—through retraining, job search help, and so on, and the balance for the disincentives to the small number of Canadians out there who actually do not want to work. How do we balance incentives for those who do want to work and the disincentives for those who do not? Mr.

Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, first, people have to accept that they are always better off working than they are collecting employment insurance benefits. If they accept that they are always better off when they have a job, we need to have a government program that supports people through training and employment. Last year, people saw us make a landmark deal with the provinces across the country for the labour market agreement, a $500-million fund from the government coffers to support connecting people to jobs and ensuring that they have training. We have changed that now.

We have established what is called a Canada job grant. The Canada job grant allows employers to put some skin in the game, hire someone who does that training, and then the labour market agreement kicks some money in for that training. That allows the employee to train and get skills for a job they know is going to be there at the end of the training. We are now negotiating with the provinces on a much larger fund, the labour market development agreement, which is a $2-billion fund in terms of training.

One of the goals we share with the provinces is that we need to ensure we have access to people for training sooner after they lose their jobs, so they can more quickly get back to jobs. This is why we are putting an emphasis on connecting people to available jobs and training. We also have to ensure that people who are currently on benefit apply and attempt to get work when they are collecting that benefit. They will be better off in the long run. Those are the priorities that our government has put in place. [ Translation ] Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member from Nova Scotia rose in the House to again support the Conservatives's attitude, when my colleague asked a question about where to find the number of people who want to work and those who do not want to work. The last time the Conservative minister from Madawaska—Restigouche was in the House, he said that people back home in New Brunswick have not changed and would rather get EI so they can go hunting and fishing instead of going to work.

Again earlier today, the same hon. member who just spoke, the member from Nova Scotia or one of his colleagues, said that the NDP wants people to work 42 weeks a year. Did you know that you are insulting the workers, the men and women who work in this country? Instead of respecting them, you are saying that workers are a lazy bunch of people who are living on employment insurance. Do you not realize that you are insulting them?

(1255) The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst must know that I did not do what he is alleging in his comments. I would remind the hon. member to direct all his comments to the Chair. The hon. parliamentary secretary. [ English ] Mr. Scott Armstrong : Mr. Speaker, I said no such thing. What the member is talking about is their plan to implement a 45-day work year, where someone can simply work for 45 days and then collect employment insurance benefits for the rest of the year. That is the NDP plan. That is not our plan.

We want to to put measures in place to give people the training they need to take available jobs. We have a problem in Canada right now. We have literally thousands of jobs available without employees with the proper training to take those jobs. When we look at the construction trades alone, over the next eight years, 300,000 new employees will be needed. Right now we are not going to be able to meet the demand that the industry will place upon Canada.

However, if we can reach into our workforce, give them the training they need to get these high-paying, high-wage jobs in the private sector, they will be much better off in the long run, as will all of Canada. This is why we have focused on tax cuts, training, and trade. Those are the keys to a successful future, not a 45-day work year. Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join in this debate. My friend and colleague from Acadie—Bathurst and I have been in the House for 15 years now. We have been on the same side of a number of debates and on different sides on others.

He is leaving and gave a farewell statement the other day. I know he has been a strong, passionate supporter of Canadians who work in rural communities and seasonal industries, and this is one issue that he and I have worked on a number of times during my time in the House. I respect his interventions and commitment to making sure that all Canadians are able to share in the wealth of this country.

In response to my question to the parliamentary secretary about the impact of the EI changes on those who work in seasonal industries, he said that Conservatives are happy to see Canadians leave those seasonal jobs and go to full-time jobs in those communities. He should step back from Starbucks and go to rural Canada because full-time jobs are not there. When a seasonal industry cannot maximize its operations because it does not have access to a workforce, that has an impact on everything in that community.

It has an impact on schools, hospitals, all aspects of how that community operates, including charitable organizations and volunteer groups. Those communities get old and dry up. That is the reality of what is happening. That is what we are seeing. Anecdotally, we are seeing that, and I am sure that other members have seen the same. The changes are having an impact. I would like to discuss a couple of aspects of the motion that was put forward, and I should say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Markham—Unionville . Right now, we are at a 70-year low.

Less than 38% of unemployed Canadians are actually receiving EI benefits. Obviously, part of the problem is that the current EI system does not reflect the new reality in Canada's job market. We are seeing an increase in the number of Canadians who are working in minimum wage jobs. There are almost a million Canadians working for minimum wage right now. That is an increase of 66% since the government took power. Whenever Conservatives are asked questions on the economy, they like to stand and talk about the jobs they have created.

If there has been an increase in 66% of minimum wage jobs in this country, what they are probably doing is leading the G7 nations in creating crappy jobs. I do not know of anybody who can look after and raise a family in a minimum wage job. We see time and time again that Canadians are knitting together a number of different job opportunities and working a couple of different jobs just to make ends meet. In this country, there are now 165,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the recession. There are some 200,000 more unemployed young Canadians than before the recession.

Year over year employment growth has been below 1% for 15 months in a row, the longest stretch below that mark outside of recessions in almost 40 years of record keeping. Job quality is reported by CIBC to be at a 25-year low.

(1300) Part of the motion is on accessibility, and we see an increase in the number of long-term unemployed in this country. We see that 37% qualify, but the part we should really be concerned about is that 25% of those who would be eligible are really long-term unemployed Canadians. Where do they end up? They end up on provincial welfare roles, as files in community service departments in the various provinces. This is 25%, and that is up over the last number of years. We see the rise in temporary work, precarious work, and the changes in the EI rules have had an impact.

We know that when the Conservatives came to power, they cut 600 jobs in the EI processing centres, which affected processing and the appeals process, as mentioned by my colleague for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour . When I first came to this chamber, if somebody was three weeks late in receiving an EI benefit, we would get a call, because that person would be in a bit of panic. Now we see time and time again files going seven and eight weeks for some people, and five weeks is not uncommon. There are 700,000 claimants each year.

If the square peg is in the square hole and the round peg is in the round hole, there is chance of getting a cheque in 28 days. For anything outside of that, anything being referred back for more information, and I am thinking of 70% of the claims that are not right not on the money, they are now waiting an average of seven weeks. Try running a household without that income. People who are living cheque to cheque, week to week, are not investing in their tax-free savings account. When we take that much manpower out of the system and think that the machines are going to do it, that does not happen.

Therefore, the Conservatives have gone back and reinvested, and brought about 135 people back in the last year. However, two years ago, if we phoned an EI processing centre, there was a 54% chance that the call would be dropped, which is down to about 47% now, and that is with the addition of those new bodies. One would think that the government would be able to connect the dots: if we put the necessary manpower, recommit to the public service and put some people to actually process these applications, then maybe the hardship would not be put on this group of Canadians.

Maybe we could deal with these and actually provide service at Service Canada. I would hope this would dawn on those who are making the decisions over there. The working while on claim was changed in budget 2012, which introduced a new clawback rule. For example, a person receiving a benefit may be able to get one day of work, which is not uncommon. The tourism industry is really busy from May until the end of October and then it is quiet. A person may claim an EI benefit, but there may be something come up in November and be able to work one day. However, the government would now claw back 50% of those earnings.

Unless a claimant works four or five days, and back home in Cape Breton—Canso they call that a full-time job, but any less than that, one, two or three days, then there are clawbacks. Therefore, those changes have hurt Canadians and a lot of industries in a lot of communities across this country. We are looking forward to this debate today on the motion put forward by my colleague from the NDP.

(1305) Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution to the debate today. However, I want to ask his party the same question that I had the opportunity to ask the New Democratic Party earlier today. Unfortunately, we did not get an answer from the New Democrats, but my colleague from the human resources committee is a straight shooter, so I am sure I will get a yes or no from him. The question is this. Is it the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada that if an individual works only 45 days out of a year that he or she should be eligible for full EI benefits?

Yes or no? Mr. Rodger Cuzner : Mr. Speaker, no. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : 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? [ English ] Mr. Rodger Cuzner : Mr. Speaker, as I said before to my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, a bit of history does not hurt this topic. Prior to when the Liberals came in in 1993, the Auditor General had identified that the EI system had been bankrupt under Brian Mulroney and the previous Conservative government. The unemployment rate was 12.5%, and inflation was in double digits.

Therefore, Paul Martin had frozen the rates at $3.02, as they were on their way to $3.20, and he brought them down 12 successive times over the course of the Liberal government. I am not saying that is the entire answer, but I do not think we can divorce the fact that it was an incentive to business to further invest in employees because there was not that heavy tax burden of EI premiums. Therefore, the unemployment rate went from 12.5% down to 6.5%. Is it where it should be now? I agree with my colleague that the focus now should not be on lowering rates but on increasing access.

(1310) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in response to a question posed by the Conservative member, my colleague gave a very short and concise answer, that being no. I am wondering if he might want to provide some comment on whether or not that would stop the Conservatives, realizing the truth in his answer, from being less than truthful in terms of what they tell Canadians. Mr. Rodger Cuzner : Mr. Speaker, the short answer to do I think the Conservatives will stop being untruthful is no. The member made reference to the 360 hours.

Somebody made a statement like that when Toronto got rocked by the SARS epidemic and so many people were staying away from work. I was in the House at the time and somebody had made the comment that it should be 360 hours and access, but that was never adopted as Liberal policy. The unfortunate

part is where this House has gone. I know we are approaching an election. This is a serious issue and a serious motion brought forward by the NDP today. We should be drawing that emotion and that partisanship out of this and talking about what works best for Canadians. That would be ideal. What creates jobs, what creates sustainability, what shares the fairness in this country should be the topics of this discussion today. Do I think that will happen today? It is very unlikely. [ Translation ] Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the major problem is that the Conservatives froze employment insurance premiums at an artificially high rate in 2015. Due to the government's decision, workers and employers paid $2.7 billion, and that is more than what they should have paid. According to the Chief Actuary of Canada, the government should have lowered these rates. The amount of $2.7 billion is important because the government estimated that the surplus for 2015 would be less than $2 billion. Therefore, it is solely because of this artificial freeze on employment insurance rates that the Conservatives were able to post a surplus.

Had they done what the Chief Actuary of Canada suggested, they would have lowered the EI premium rates and Canada would definitely have had a deficit this year. These figures were not provided by the Liberals, but by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The Chief Actuary of Canada recommended lowering the rates. These are the statements of competent people. Canadians need to know that this artificial surplus is the direct result of the government's political and arbitrary decision to freeze EI rates when it should have lowered them. That is the main point that I want to make.

The Liberals do not have a problem with balancing the EI account over the economic cycle. In principle, the government is saying something similar, but it is nothing more than a theory. The reality is completely different. The government set up a body whose only role was to set the EI premium rates. However, the government then ignored the recommendations of the office that it itself set up and eliminated that role, leaving it up to politicians to make those decisions for political purposes.

The government set these EI contribution rates for purely political reasons so that it could tell Canadians in an election year that it had balanced the budget and that the Conservatives are excellent economic managers. In reality, without that arbitrary decision, the budget would not be balanced. Many economists are saying that, even with that decision regarding the EI rates, we are still heading toward a deficit because we are currently in an economic slump. However, the Conservatives do not seem to care, since that deficit will not be announced until after the election.

Once the votes have been counted, it will be too late for Canadians to find out what is really happening. (1315) [ English ] I would also say it really is amazing that the Conservatives, of all people, are maintaining artificially high employment insurance premiums, or what they would call payroll taxes. Who is it who day after day rants and raves about the job-destroying properties of payroll taxes? It is the Conservatives. In many respects, they are wrong on that.

Under Paul Martin in the late 1990s, there were significant increases in premiums to reform the CPP, and employment growth chugged along at a nice pace, so I think the Conservatives are out to lunch anyway. The point I am making now is that when a party goes berserk about payroll taxes saying that they're the most evil thing to confront a country, it is the height of hypocrisy for that same party to artificially keep those payroll taxes at a high level just to claim that they have balanced the budget.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the payroll-hating party over there to itself artificially raise or keep payroll taxes high, which all of the experts tell us should be brought down.

According to the Conservatives' own logic, had they reduced employment insurance premiums, as the experts all say they ought to have done, imagine all the jobs that would have been created because of the reduction of this job-destroying payroll tax, which the Conservatives are keeping artificially high. [ Translation ] That is the height of hypocrisy and it is unacceptable. [ English ] The other thing I would say is that the Conservatives do not even know what a tax is. They keep talking about higher premiums paid by individual Canadians for the CPP as a tax hike.

They seem blissfully unaware of the fact that this is not money that goes into general revenues as does a tax increase. Each and every penny of any additional contribution to the CPP by an individual Canadian is invested on behalf of that Canadian and paid back to him or her at the time of his or her retirement in the full amount, plus interest. Let me say also that it is high interest, because the CPP has had an excellent rate of return over the years. This last year, I think it was 16% or some huge level.

In the last decade or so, the return after inflation was 6.2%, which in a period of record low interest rates is a hugely successful return on investment. I read today that they might be acquiring the private equity component of GE, which would be another vehicle for good returns. It is not as if this money would be put into a sinkhole and wasted.

The track record is that the rate of return on such funds is high, and that is a direct benefit to Canadians, because all of that money is returned to those Canadians in the form of pensions, based on their own contributions and based on the very substantial rate of return earned by the CPP. (1320) [ Translation ] I will conclude with this central point: the only reason we have a surplus this year is because the government artificially maintained employment insurance premiums at a level that all experts deem is far too high. [ English ] Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the member for Markham—Unionville made an entertaining speech this afternoon. I think there was quite a bit of revisionist history in most of what I listened to. Actions speak louder than words. The Minister of Finance announced a three year freeze on EI premiums, which was called for by businesses. Certainly, workers would appreciate it, too. We have run a very strong and stable EI system, and I agree with the member, as a segregated fund. However, they are also payroll taxes.

One of the things that the member clearly does not understand is that his leader's promise to increase CPP premiums on workers is a payroll tax. It is not forced savings for some time down the road. It is a clear tax that would kill jobs today. Why is the Liberal Party's position to kill jobs today hoping that there is retirement money for somebody 20 years down the road? Hon. John McCallum : Mr.

Speaker, if I accept the member's false premise for a moment, I could turn the question on him and ask, why this fantastic amount of job-killing payroll tax hikes by the Conservatives when, as he just said, they froze the EI premiums, but all the experts are saying that circumstances call for a reduction? It is the member's government that has imposed artificially high payroll taxes in the form of EI premiums that are too high. The member is the one who should be apologizing for these job-destroying payroll taxes. I will have to take him through the subject once again.

What I said and what is true is that when an individual Canadian pays more premiums on the Canada pension plan, that is not a tax, because every penny of that money is invested on behalf of that person, and every penny plus a substantial return goes back to that individual as a pension in his or her retirement years. That is not, I repeat, a tax. I will repeat what I said earlier, which the member seems to ignore, that it is his party that has imposed an unnecessarily high level of employment insurance premiums. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : 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. Hon. John McCallum : Mr. Speaker, maybe the Liberals cannot tell the difference between net jobs and gross jobs, but I would say that the NDP cannot tell the difference between any two things to do with economics. (1325) [ English ] They are out to lunch on the economy in general. They do not have a clue how to manage the economy. They do not know what it means to balance a budget.

To criticize the Liberals for economic incompetence is like the pot calling the kettle black. I would remind the member that it is we in the Liberal Party, having inherited a $43-billion Conservative deficit, who eliminated that quickly, paid down debt for 10 long years, and moved Canada from being the basket case of the G7 to being the star of the G7 in terms of fiscal probity. That star position was there for a while, but it was removed by the Conservatives who run nothing but deficits. Obviously, we need Liberals in charge of the economy. [ Translation ] Mr.

Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my very hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst . If there is one issue that my colleague has mastered in his 18 years in the House of Commons, it has to be employment insurance. To begin, I will add to what my Liberal Party colleague said, because he seems to have forgotten to mention that the only reason they were able to balance the budget while they were in power was that they pillaged the employment insurance fund. We all remember that they took over $50 billion from the fund.

Now they go around boasting about how they can balance budgets. Frankly, they balanced their budgets at the expense of the poorest people in Canada. If their party really wants to build a more just society, maybe it should go get some money from its friends in the Senate who are now being investigated because they have a lot of money.

In my riding, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, we had an inkling back at the beginning of my term in 2011 when we found out that the Conservative government wanted to close employment insurance processing centres in our ridings and transfer those jobs—by pure coincidence, I am sure—to ridings held by Conservative MPs. That was really hard to swallow. We lost over 40 well-paying jobs that had been filled by people who knew the region and knew how to process claims in a fair and just manner. Where are we today? Processing centres in the Gaspé, Rimouski and Sept-Îles have all closed.

Once again, they were all relocated to Conservative ridings. That is a strange coincidence. I want to talk about the situation facing people who claim EI benefits. Without naming any names, I would like to share the story of one of my constituents. In the Gaspé there is only one road, highway 132. This individual receives EI and looks after her affairs. She is looking for work and keeps an eye out in her area. The other morning, she received a phone call from an employment insurance officer who had found her a job. Being an industrious person, she told him how happy she was and asked when she could start.

She was told she could start the following Monday. She guessed that the officer, from his office, was not familiar with the Gaspé. Since she lives in New Richmond and would have to go to Chandler—for that is where the job is located—the trip would take her two hours every morning and two hours every night. This is a situation where the person applying for EI benefits truly needs them. Local knowledge is lost with the local workers who used to process these applications.

Now everything is centralized in offices that are very far away from our region, and the Conservatives have completely failed to grasp that the distances can be quite vast in a region. I even heard of cases where people from the Magdalen Islands, in the middle of the gulf, were offered jobs 300 km west. I guess they were supposed to commute by canoe. Frankly, I do not know how they were supposed to get to work. We lost local knowledge, and that is when things started to change back home.

We then found out that the Conservatives wanted to follow the Liberal Party's lead and save a pile of money so that they could now brag about balancing the budget. It is obvious that they did not balance it. In this year's budget, we can clearly see that they took $1.8 billion from the EI fund in order to be able to brag about balancing the budget. So far, at least $57 billion has been taken from the EI fund. With the budgets the Conservatives brought down last month, it is estimated that another $17 billion will be taken from the fund over the next five years. That is no way to balance the budget.

It is a way of transferring debt to people who simply do not have the means to pay it. Back home, in the regions with seasonal employment, workers need to know that their government is there for them when they need support. They are not getting that support today. As a result, people are thinking about leaving the regions.

(1330) We have seen it. People are moving away from eastern Canada because, unfortunately, neither the Conservative government nor the Liberal government before it understood the reality in regions where there is seasonal work. If we want to start making reforms so that people stop filing claims for benefits, perhaps we should start by asking ourselves whether there are enough jobs for people working in the regions. What is the Conservatives' and the Liberals' long-term vision for creating jobs in our regions?

I do not think that criticizing people every time they lose a job and telling them that it is their own fault is going to generate wealth in the regions. Seasonal work areas need support, and that includes training and employment insurance benefits. People also need to be treated fairly. The Conservatives' budget does just the opposite, and that is worrisome. Unfortunately, they followed the Liberals' example. Their so-called improvements were a step in the wrong direction and are hurting more and more people. I would like to point out that we are setting records with regard to employment insurance.

Under the Liberals, only 50% of unemployed workers were eligible for EI benefits. That is not 50% of Canadians who lost their jobs at some point during the year. I am talking about those who lost their jobs and filed a claim for EI benefits. Right off the bat, 50% of them were not even eligible for EI benefits. We have the Liberals to thank for that. EI is an insurance policy. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if you paid for home insurance coverage in case of fire. Your house catches on fire and your insurance company tells you that, unfortunately, you are among the 50% of people whose claims are automatically refused.

In my opinion, that is not an insurance policy. The Conservatives did not stop there. At present, only 35% of the unemployed workers in Canada are entitled to employment insurance. That is a record. The employment insurance fund has become a cash cow increasingly used to eliminate the deficit of the party in power, whether it is Conservative or Liberal. They get satisfaction from mistreating people by bringing forward programs that will hurt the poorest Canadians. What happens to that money? The Conservatives want to give it to the richest 15% of the population. That is not a fair and equitable society.

It is a society that gives the elite more than what they deserve, and lets them send money overseas so they can hide it in bank accounts in order to evade taxes. Instead of trying to recover this money, the Conservatives make cuts to Revenue Canada so that the rich can continue to evade taxes. Meanwhile, employment insurance benefits are taken away from the poorest Canadians. That is really unfair and no way to govern a country. If the goal is to make the rich richer, then congratulations to the Conservatives, who have truly figured out how to do that.

However, I want a much fairer society, a society that helps people when they need it. I would remind members that the EI system was created during the depression in the 1930s when there was a huge need for this kind of program. Since then, Canada has recognized that we want a fair and just society. We do not want a country in which the gap between the rich and the poor gets bigger, yet that is what is happening right now. The richest 10% in Canada now control much more than 50% of the economy.

We must achieve a better balance, and the government must use the tools at its disposal to ensure that all regions of Canada experience economic growth. The Conservative government is often accused of caring only about the ridings that voted Conservative. This has sometimes been the case. Did it simply abandon eastern Canada? Frankly, that is how people back home feel. They feel abandoned by their government, as though the Conservative government does not listen to them. That is why people are increasingly seeing that there are other ways to manage this country. What it will take is a party that reflects them.

What it will take is a vote for the NDP. (1335) [ English ] Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciated about half the intervention of my colleague. However, I want to go back to EI processing. I know he represents a great number of people in seasonal industries, so I am sure he has a number of active files within his riding. I would like to ask my colleague if this makes sense. Prior to 2008, the standard for EI processing centres was to answer the call within three minutes. That happened about 95% of the time.

After the Conservatives got their hands on the EI processing centres and starting making cuts, rather than reinvesting and keeping that standard, they lowered it to 80% of calls within three minutes. Last year, they lowered answering the call 80% of time within 10 minutes. We are starting to see a pattern here. Now, in response to an order paper question last year, they are only hitting the standard of answering a call within 10 minutes 45% of the time. Is this what Canadians are experiencing now for someone who is trying to put some food in the fridge, maybe fill a prescription or put some oil in the tank?

Is that what you are experiencing? The Deputy Speaker : I would remind all members, including the past speaker, to direct their questions to the Chair and not to other members. Mr. Philip Toone : Mr. Speaker, my colleague is spot-on when he points out that there have been so many drastic cuts to so many services in the federal civil services, and employment insurance has not been exempt from that. I will remind people it is “Service” and not “Services” Canada. I think the Conservatives might have dropped the “s” during its mandate.

However, there clearly is a much longer wait period for people to try to get their files treated. Some people are on the phone for hours at a time. This is not an exaggeration. It is three hours sometimes. My understanding is that they are not even counting the statistics if people hang up before Service Canada hangs up on them. Therefore, when he says that there has been a degradation in the amount of time that people wait to have their calls treated by Service Canada, in fact it under-reports what the actual situation is because people cannot spend the day on the phone.

I will remind my colleague and members of the Conservative Party that when people wait that long on the phone before they can get some service from Service Canada, perhaps their time would be better spent looking for a job. However, no, they have to sit at home waiting for an answer from Service Canada. The government has cut much too much and it is very inefficient. Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he thought the government had forgotten people on EI.

I want to remind him that in the budget this year, on page 240, there is extensive coverage on an issue with which I know you, Mr. Speaker, are very familiar. It has to do with extending palliative care and care for those who are providing palliative care up to six months of coverage through EI. Up until now it has only been six weeks. In fact, prior to these changes, people claiming EI would have to prove that their relatives were close to death. Our government has initiated very good programs.

Would my colleague acknowledge the fact that it is our government that has put into place many changes, like the one I just referenced, which help Canadians who are the most vulnerable and who need this kind of care most?

(1340) Mr. Philip Toone : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out that there was one measure in the budget from which some people might actually benefit. The problem is that in making a request in the first place, they will have to call Service Canada and wait several hours. That is probably not very efficient. In areas of seasonal work, those who will try to benefit from what he just said likely will have insufficient hours to get EI the next year. Although the government has created a program whereby they will get more benefits one year, they will be cut entirely from getting benefits the year after.

Therefore, I honestly do not think this is any long-term solution for a very long-term problem. [ Translation ] Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the subject of employment insurance. Workers across the country who know me know that I came to Parliament in 1997 the day we booted out Doug Young because he and the Liberals made changes to the employment insurance program in 1996. I would like to talk about what led up to that event and read from a letter by a former Canadian prime minister, Jean Chrétien, to a group of workers in Rivière-du-Loup.

The letter was written on February 17, 1993, and it was about unemployment insurance. I like to call a spade a spade, and I would rather talk about unemployment insurance than employment insurance. Here is how the letter goes: The Liberals are dismayed by these measures. By reducing benefits and further penalizing those who voluntarily leave their jobs, clearly the government [it was the Conservative government then] cares very little for the victims of the economic crisis. Instead of attacking the real problem, it is attacking the unemployed.

These measures will have a disturbing impact, for they will discourage workers from reporting harassment cases and unacceptable conditions in the workplace. That was the former prime minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, who said that. He was elected because of it. At the time, Doug Young, the former Liberal MP, did not have nice things to say about the Conservatives. On July 31, 1989, he told Acadie Nouvelle that he was urging all New Brunswickers to fight tooth and nail against changes to employment insurance because they would be disastrous for New Brunswick. Yes, it has been a disaster for New Brunswick.

In September or October 1993, the Liberals took office. They discovered that the employment insurance fund could be the government's cash cow. Money was coming in from all over the place. They said they needed even more, and in 1996, they made some huge budget cuts and introduced the 420-hour and 910-hour conditions to be eligible for EI.

Whereas in the past 82% of workers had been eligible for EI, at that point only 38% were eligible. The biggest pilfering of the EI fund happened under the Liberals, who helped themselves to $57 billion. That is right, $57 billion was taken from the EI fund. The Liberals' defence, however, was that the government was running a deficit and cuts had to be made somewhere. They made cuts to EI and to health care. In 1994, Paul Martin made Canada's health care system sick. At a time when the federal government was paying 50% of health care costs in each province, the Liberal government cut that down to 15%.

Then the Liberals went after the CBC and cut $350 million there. Next came the Conservatives, who said that they did not want to steal from employment insurance and that they would make some changes. They proposed a new independent fund—although that would not really be the case—and a new framework. They therefore transferred the $57 billion the Liberals had stolen back into the fund and said they would not touch it again. The government's latest budget announced a surplus of $3.4 billion in the EI fund. However, the government is reporting a budget surplus of $1.4 billion.

If it were to take that $3.4 billion out of the employment insurance fund, the government would be running a deficit. It would not be able to say that it has balanced the budget or all those wonderful things, or everything else it is saying about the EI fund. It is not the workers who depend on employment insurance, but rather the Conservatives and the Liberals.

(1345) I have known the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso for 15 years. I was disappointed when he answered the Conservative member's question on whether or not he agreed that a person should work only 42 weeks a year. Instead of saying no, I would have liked him to say that Nova Scotia has seasonal employment and people who work in the lobster fishery, for example. Sometimes they stop working for three or four weeks. They collect employment insurance and then go back to work. That is what seasonal employment is all about. The Conservatives made cuts to the employment insurance program.

People down east said they could not go on like that, and they left to go work out west. Now we have temporary foreign workers doing the work back home and contributing to EI. When they have an accident, they are put on the next flight home and do not collect a dime of EI. Again, this government is stealing from workers. Is there something wrong with the NDP motion that the Conservatives cannot support? It seeks to “protect workers' and employers' premiums from political interference”. In this motion we state that we are going to protect workers' premiums.

We are going to tell politicians to stop stealing from the employment insurance fund and relying on it, because it belongs to the workers. They are the ones who contribute to it. The Liberals and the Conservatives like to say that employment insurance premiums are a tax. That is false. They should consult a dictionary. It is a premium that people pay in the event they lose their jobs. It is not a tax. They say that the NDP wants to increase employment insurance premiums. The Conservatives had a $7 billion surplus and the Liberals had a $3 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund.

The Conservatives lowered corporate taxes by $40 billion at the same time that the banks made $22 billion in profits and their presidents paid themselves $11 million in bonuses. That is another example of money being stolen from Canadians and taxpayers. That is the work of the Conservatives. Shame on them. Given all that is happening with employment insurance and workers, there is only one thing to say. I once mentioned it to the Prime Minister : what have workers done to the government for the government to hate them so much?

With all due respect for employers, how is it that, if one of them runs into difficulty, the government rushes to that employer's aid to make sure that he does not lose his business? However, if a worker loses his job, he is abusing the system. Were it not for workers, the honest men and women who get up every morning and work for those employers, there would be no employers. There would not be any rich people, any millionaires and billionaires. There are now more billionaire CEOs in the world than ever. Some of these people are hiding their money in other countries and not even paying their taxes.

Even Paul Martin owned ships that did not fly the Canadian flag and hired cheap labour. He eliminated jobs for workers. I see these people in my riding. I see women and men who work in fish processing plants. I see people who work in the forest. I meet with them. I meet with people who pick blueberries. I meet with people who cut trees to make Christmas wreaths, who are trying to earn a living and buy food for their children. The Conservatives could not care less about these people. Today we are hearing insult after insult, as we have heard from the minister who represents the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche .

He says that people back home have not changed and would rather receive EI so they can hunt and fish instead of working. What an insult to workers. That is unacceptable. They deserve an apology. The NDP's motion is commendable. It is commendable to say that we will protect workers' premiums. We want to create a system that will guarantee that women and men who lose their jobs will receive an income while they search for another job, instead of being forced to claim social assistance or work in other provinces. I hope this motion is adopted.

I hope that the NDP wins the next election and that the government starts to respect the men and women who get up every morning and work to build this country.

(1350) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with all the comments the member has put on the record, obviously. At least from my perspective, the New Democrats do not own the right to proclaim that they represent the workers. I represent a North End riding, for example. The NDP has never been in government nationally, but it has been provincially. I think of individuals like Jim Budd and other injured workers, who would say that the NDP government in Manitoba has been saving money on the backs of injured workers in the province of Manitoba.

Not even the New Democrats can say that they are clearly in defence of workers, when we think in terms of the injured workers and the abuse they have to go through to save money through Workers Compensation. I say that, for what it is worth, as the member wants to take shots at former Liberal prime ministers Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien. I would ask if the member would acknowledge the reality that when Jean Chrétien assumed government, we had an unemployment rate in the double digits, in excess of 12%, and we were able to reduce it to 6.5%.

That also allowed us to reduce the rate of unemployment premiums the employer and employee had to contribute. Would he not recognize that as a good thing? Mr. Yvon Godin : Mr. Speaker, if the NDP government in the member's province has done that, it is wrong, because we should support the workers and give them what should come to them. Regarding Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, if they said they did the job as they did, they did it by stealing the money from the workers. There was $57 billion that came from employment insurance.

They were bragging in this House that they had a zero deficit and that they had a surplus. At that time, there was a $7-billion surplus every year that came from the workers, men and women who lost their jobs. They have nothing to brag about Jean Chrétien. They have nothing to brag about Paul Martin, when he was not even paying his own taxes in our country. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my very hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for his speech. He has so much knowledge and experience.

For 18 years now, he has been fighting tooth and nail for employment insurance, or rather unemployment insurance, which—I agree with him—is a more accurate term. He did a very good job of emphasizing that seasonal jobs, though they are not the only ones, are essential economic activities in the regions and in urban centres too. Many activities ebb and flow with the seasons. Often, these are very important businesses in terms of the overall economy of their regions. I would like my colleague to comment on the harm done to economic activity and businesses that are doing their best to keep going.

As we have often heard, these businesses end up losing very experienced employees with irreplaceable knowledge. Such losses threaten seasonal activities that are important to the economy of regions like Acadia. Mr. Yvon Godin : Mr. Speaker, successive Conservative and Liberal governments over the past several years have not found a solution for seasonal workers. What does this mean for my region and everywhere else in Canada? I have travelled around all the provinces, from Newfoundland to Vancouver, and I hosted 54 meetings with people from 21 different regions.

When employers lose trained staff, it is hard for them to find new workers who can work on a production line in a fish plant, for example. Not just anyone can walk into a restaurant and know how to do what needs to be done. Not just anyone can become a logger. Those kinds of employers have lost good workers. As another example, no one becomes a fisher overnight. It takes months to become a good fisher. Some regions have lost skilled fishers. People were fed up, so they went to work in western Canada, and now our employers are suffering because of decisions made by previous Liberal and Conservative governments.

Today, we are still paying the price. We need to find a solution for seasonal workers. We need to find a way to help that industry, instead of hiring temporary foreign workers and saying that Canadians will not work. (1355) [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : Resuming debate. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre will have three minutes before we go to question period. Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this debate, and I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Employment and Social Development .

These are important questions we are dealing with, and obviously, there are a couple different philosophies at play here. While the Liberals and the NDP would increase taxes for the middle class, our job is to continue to cut taxes, which we have done 180 times or so since 2006, and we will continue to do that. The reason the NDP is opposed to our plan is that EI rates will fall. The NDP wants to hike those kinds of job-killing EI premium taxes. Whether we call them fees or taxes, the impact is the same.

It is money coming from workers, and it is money coming from employers, which would have a negative impact on job creation. The best social program in the world, of course, is an actual job. I applaud my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst , for his passion. I know he is sincere and believes passionately what he says. I applaud that. However, there are a couple of different ways of looking at it. Premier Kathleen Wynne has talked about increasing mandatory CPP contributions, which is not the same as EI, obviously, but is in the same ballpark.

They are going to force people to contribute, employers and workers, which will hurt the very people we are trying to help. These kind of payroll taxes would cost Canadian workers upwards of $1,000 or more, depending on how much they are making. The NDP's real plan for employment insurance is a 45-day work year, which makes no practical sense at all. It would increase EI premiums for Canadian workers by billions of dollars, and that does not help create jobs. Last fall, we introduced the small business tax credit, which reduced EI premiums for 780,000 small businesses.

Of course, the high-tax parties opposed that cut. In budget 2015, our government reaffirmed our commitment to reduce EI premiums by 21% in 2017. That will promote job creation. Some 99.8% of all businesses in Canada are SMEs, small and medium enterprises. Those are the folks who drive the Canadian economy. Those are the folks who provide the jobs that are so necessary to ordinary Canadians, who are, as we have heard today, all in the same boat, to varying degrees, putting food on the table, gas in the tank, and so on.

Those are the kinds of people we need to spend the most time looking out for, and those are the people we are concentrating on in keeping taxes low, in keeping things like job-killing EI premiums and mandatory CPP contributions low, and we do not actually go to CPP, so that industry can continue to create jobs for the very kinds of people who everyone on all sides of this floor wants to help. The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member for Edmonton Centre will have seven minutes when we resume debate on this topic after question period.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ Translation ] Centre for Children with Developmental Disabilities Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, on June 18, the Victoriaville golf club is hosting the 11th annual police officers charity golf tournament. Sûreté du Québec officers from the Arthabaska RCM will be playing to raise money for the Centre de stimulation L'Envol. I am extremely proud to be an honorary patron, even though I feel sorry for my golf partners that day. More than 250 golfers and more than 300 dinner guests are expected again this year.

The Centre de stimulation L'Envol provides stimulating activities and games for children 1 to 12 with developmental disabilities, including difficulty communicating. The centre also provides expertise and knowledge sharing services to help the children become independent and to provide support to their families. L'Envol was founded in 1996 by Marguerite Bourgeois, a mother of two children with communication impairments who found there was a lack of specialized services. Today, the centre, which began in Ms. Bourgeois' basement, is known far and wide for the quality of its services.

Last year, the police officers raised $18,000 for the centre. I would like to thank them as well as the participants and the countless volunteers.

(1400) [ English ] Democratic Elections Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, recently we have witnessed good progress in the advancement of the key democratic principle of free and fair elections. I want to congratulate the people of Sri Lanka, Turkey, Nigeria, and Mexico, to name a few, where people have exercised their democratic right to choose their leaders peacefully despite strong-arm tactics.

Let me give a few examples: the defeat of former president Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka, the loss of the majority of President Erdogan's party in Turkey, and the change of government in Nigeria where I attended the new president's inauguration. However, sadly there are countries where this democratic right is denied. A few examples are Iran, Thailand, Eritrea, and the Maldives. This government is proud to have a strong record of supporting democracy and the protection of human rights around the world.

World Oceans Day Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark World Oceans Day, an international event that draws attention to the threats facing our marine ecosystem, celebrates oceans, and encourages conservation. This year's theme is “Healthy oceans, healthy planet”, which is intended to bring awareness to the approximately eight million tonnes of plastic entering our oceans every year and on ways to decrease our reliance on plastic materials. Plastic destroys marine life and puts our marine ecosystem at risk. It is the number one source of pollution in our ocean today.

We need government policy that conserves, protects, and restores our oceans. This must include meeting our UN commitment to protect 10% of Canada's oceans and lakes in marine protected areas. The time to act is now. Let us help our oceans today and every day. I encourage all members of the House to participate in World Oceans Day by attending the World Oceans Day reception on the Hill today.

Member for Okanagan—Shuswap Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to acknowledge the three staff who have worked with and supported me over the past nine years that I have served as the member of Parliament for Okanagan—Shuswap . They are Jeannette Gasparini, my Ottawa executive assistant; in the riding, Penny Renyk, my constituency office manager; and, Tammy Martin, my constituency community and communication assistant, who has ensured that I was at the right place, at the right time, saying the right things. These ladies have made being an MP easy, and I thank them.

I also thank the many people from the constituency who have served on my EDA board and those who have worked on my three successful election campaigns. I thank my bride of 45 years for making everything I do better. Without her at my side, I am only half the servant I should be. I know she will be missed by all of the MP and senator spouses whom she has encouraged over the years. I thank the Prime Minister for being a principled and courageous leader. It has been an honour to be part of his team. Finally, I thank all of those in this place who serve our great nation.

May God bless them as they serve, and may God bless Canada.

Allan Roberts Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Allan Roberts of Wild Cove, Twillingate, who passed away on May 30 at the age of 93. Allan's early years were rough. He lost his mother at the tender age of 2, and started in the workforce with his father at the age of 12, building boats in the winter and fishing in the summer. He served as a gunner during the Second World War, losing his hearing while bravely fighting on the front lines. In 1960, Allan started a new career as a light keeper at the Long Point Lighthouse.

Allan was known as a kind, gentle, patient, and fun-loving man. He always had an exciting story to share with his children and grandchildren, who listened in awe of his adventures. He was dedicated to community service, as a member of the church board, working with youth, and lending a hand when needed. He was also an avid reader and enjoyed writing poetry. We say goodbye today. However, Allan's legacy will live on in our hearts. Mr. Allan Roberts will be lovingly remembered and never forgotten.

(1405) Global Vision Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the founder of Global Vision and former parliamentarian, Terry Clifford, and Junior Team Canada ambassadors, who have joined us in Ottawa today to celebrate Global Vision's 25 years of producing today's global leaders. These youth represent Canadian communities from coast to coast to coast and have worked together to develop innovative ways to actively involve their peers in civic engagement and economic and community projects as we pave the road toward 2017.

Throughout their hard work as Junior Team Canada ambassadors, they have demonstrated their true attachment to Canada, helping to build stronger, more viable communities. This would not have been possible without the valuable partnerships with universities, colleges, Canadian Heritage, Parks Canada, and First Air providing youth with the unique opportunity to understand Canada beyond their own backyard. I encourage them to continue to get involved, take action, and be engaged as today's generation of leaders. Thanks, Terry.

[ Translation ] St. Lawrence River Week Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to mark the third edition of St. Lawrence Week. This event is important to me, especially because the majestic river's north shore runs for 350 kilometres along my entire riding, from Quebec City to Colombier. I want all of my constituents to realize how important it is to get to know our river and thus realize that it is fragile and that we are mutually dependent.

We should acknowledge the many benefits we derive from this great river by personally getting involved in protecting it and preserving it for future generations. We can show our support by attending this event and participating in great numbers in the many activities offered during St. Lawrence Week.

[ English ] 2015 Pan Am Games Torch Relay Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Toronto 2015 Pan Am Games torch will be passing through my riding of Dufferin—Caledon this weekend. On Friday, June 12, the torch will travel from Shelburne to the town of Mono, and finally to Orangeville, where it will stop for the evening. Orangeville will be hosting a spectacular event as a major celebration community.

The next morning, on Saturday, June 13, the torch will leave Orangeville and travel through Palgrave, Bolton, Inglewood, Belfountain, and Alton, and finally arrive in Caledon East, where the town of Caledon will also be hosting another outstanding event as a major celebration community. I am very proud that these two communities in my riding have been selected as major celebration communities during the torch's travels from May 30 to July 10. I encourage everyone to join the wonderful celebrations taking place that will showcase the very best that our province and communities have to offer the world.

Member for Perth—Wellington Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I approach retirement, I am struck by the gratitude that I have for those who have supported me, those who have challenged me, and those I have had the privilege to serve. I have had the pleasure of working with the staff of the House of Commons, foreign diplomats, and our public service. I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their help and support along the way. I thank my staff, both here and at home, some of whom have been with me since I was first elected.

I would like to recognize Les Broadfoot, who suggested that I go into politics. I cannot begin to express my thanks for my wife Judy and our family, who have been by my side throughout this journey. I will always remain indebted to my constituents for their faith in me over these past 12 years. It has been a great honour to serve Canada in this wonderful House.

[ Translation ] Federal Port Facilities Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 11 ports and wharves in Manicouagan will be sold or ceded under the federal ports asset transfer program. These facilities are necessary to the survival and economic development of municipalities in our region, especially those that are not accessible by road. They are used to provide coastal communities with food and fuel and are essential to the commercial fishery.

However, the federal government announced its transfer program without giving any clear and specific information about the funding to maintain and upgrade these facilities before they are transferred. Many municipalities want to ensure that the government will provide them with financial support since the facilities in question are old and outdated. We are therefore calling on the Minister of Transport to provide us with details about this as soon as possible.

(1410) [ English ] Sir Winston Churchill Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to mark the visit to Canada of Randolph Churchill, the great grandson of the great Sir Winston Churchill. I would also like to note that this visit was organized by Ron Cohen, who is the president of the Churchill Society of Ottawa. Sir Winston Churchill provides the example of leadership on the world stage for modern day political leaders. It is because of his strong and principled leadership that I have the freedom today to give this statement.

Churchill once remarked in Quebec City, “the spirit of freedom has found a safe and abiding home” in Canada. These words remain true today more than ever. I would ask the House to join me in recognizing the legacy and life of one of history's greatest leaders, Sir Winston Churchill.

National Order of the Legion of Honour Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want recognize a hero today. Because of his service in World War II, London's own Michael Sydorko is now a Knight in the National Order of the Legion of Honour of the Republic of France. Born in Lac du Bonnet , Manitoba, Michael served with the Lake Superior Regiment 4th Canadian Armoured Division of the Canadian army. The “Lake Sups,” as they came to be known, played a vital role in the liberation of France and the Netherlands from Nazi occupation.

Michael volunteered for duty as a teenager and risked his life for the liberty of others. He has the distinction of being the only Canadian soldier to disarm U.S. General George Patton, who, after relinquishing his arms, complimented Sydorko's pluck by saying he would like to have him in his unit. The distinction of knighthood is just one of many military honours that Michael has received over the years, and it is France's highest honour. Michael is one of fewer than 40 Canadians to receive it. It is only fitting that he be recognized and honoured in the House today.

Pensions Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has an independent mandate that is crystal clear: to serve the best interests of hard-working Canadians who have paid into it. The board is responsible for investing CPP funds prudently in a diversified portfolio of assets to the benefit of CPP contributors and beneficiaries. This helps to ensure that the retirement funds Canadians rely on remain safe and secure. However, the Liberal leader is planning to pay for his irresponsible spending by “alternative sources of capital, such as pension funds”.

It gets worse. The Liberal leader also said of his spending schemes, “It is time for a new revenue source...”. Canadians know what that means: another tax hike from the Liberal leader. To the Liberal leader, we say hands off Canadians' pension plans.

World Oceans Day Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today is World Oceans Day. I am proud that previous Liberal governments have a strong tradition when it comes to our oceans. We introduced the Oceans Act in 1996, Canada's oceans strategy in 2002, and Canada's oceans action plan in 2005. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is lost at sea when it comes to protecting our oceans.

DFO research centres have been cut or shut down, the marine contaminants program is gone, DFO libraries and water pollution labs are gone, scientists have been fired or muzzled, the Fisheries Act was gutted, conservation offices closed, oceans management cut, PNCIMA eliminated, and the list goes on. A Liberal government would continue our proud tradition and ensure the protection and preservation of Canada's oceans and marine resources.

Canadian Armed Forces Day Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon (Miramichi, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Canadian Armed Forces Day, an opportunity to say thanks to the men and women in uniform who stand on guard for Canada, the true north, strong and free. We are all blessed to call Canada home. Our military keeps us safe, serving us at home and abroad in times of both peace and conflict, ready for duty at a moment's notice. On behalf of my constituency of Miramichi and all colleagues here today, I wish to extend our sincere appreciation to the soldiers, sailors, and aviators who keep Canada safe.

(1415) [ Translation ] New Democratic Party of Canada Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it must be a rude awakening for all of the Conservative members who were confident that they would change the Liberals' culture of secrecy in Ottawa. Who was the recipient of the Canadian Association of Journalists' Code of Silence Award on the weekend? The Conservative government, naturally. I am talking about the same Conservative government that promised to clean house, manage transparently and restore Canadians' trust.

After 10 years of Conservative power, Canadians have seen the Conservatives protect their friends by altering reports before they were made public and heavily redact documents requested under the Access to Information Act. It is no surprise that Canadians have had enough of this tired old Conservative government. In October, Canadians will no longer have to vote for secrecy under the Conservatives or the Liberals. They will finally be able to vote for an open and transparent government—a New Democrat government.

[ English ] Taxation Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Liberal leader revealed that he will pay for his irresponsible spending by “alternative sources of capital, such as pension funds”. It would be highly irresponsible for the Liberal leader to jeopardize Canadians' retirement security to fund his wild spending promises. If that was not enough, the Liberal leader is also promising to look for a new revenue source. Canadians know exactly what that means, when a Liberal promises a new revenue source. It is higher taxes on the middle class.

While the leader of the Liberal Party is promising to raise taxes and put at risk the pensions of Canadians to pay for his massive spending, our government will continue to reduce taxes and protect pensions.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Ethics Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a million dollars in fraudulent claims by 30 senators. Nine senators immediately referred to the police. The Conservative and Liberal leaders in the Senate and the Prime Minister 's hand-picked choice for Speaker are all on the list. Did the Prime Minister know about Leo Housakos' spending habits before naming him Speaker of Canada's Senate? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Senator Housakos has already answered that question. At the same time, it was the Senate that actually invited in the Auditor General to review all of their expenses, and we anxiously await their report and the Senate's response tomorrow. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Actually, Mr. Speaker, here is what Senator Housakos did say over the weekend: we in the Senate “should be thanked by the population for our actions”. No wonder Canadians are fed up. Leo Housakos is a close ally of the Prime Minister . He was appointed Senate Speaker just a month ago.

Now he has set up an arbitration process that has allowed senators like himself to dispute the Auditor General's finding. Has the Prime Minister 's Office been in touch with Senator Housakos about this scandal? Is the Prime Minister 's Office once again orchestrating the response to the most recent Senate scandal? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Again, Mr. Speaker, as you know, it was the Senate that invited the Auditor General in to examine all of their expenses. The report is due tomorrow.

We anxiously await this report and the response from the Senate. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve clear answers, because it is their money. We are talking about appointments made by this Prime Minister and we are talking about audit reports being tampered with. We are all familiar with the role of the staff of the Prime Minister 's Office, particularly in the Mike Duffy scandal. As for the chiefs of staff, Ray Novak and Nigel Wright, their role is quite clear.

The question now is what role the Prime Minister's Office is currently playing in the latest Senate fiasco. Who knew about it, and who was in contact with Senator Leo Housakos to try to manage the most recent crisis in the Senate of Canada?

(1420) Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as everyone in the House knows, it was the Senate that invited the Auditor General in to examine all of their expenses. We anxiously await tomorrow's report. I hope the Senate will respond immediately.

The Environment Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, climate change is another issue on which the Conservatives have repeatedly failed, from their unambitious national plan to their non-existent emissions caps and their withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol. Worse still, today we learned that Canada is responsible for watering down the G7 communiqué on climate change. Why is the Prime Minister determined to make Canada an international pariah when it comes to the fight against climate change? Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the G7 released a strong, unanimous statement on climate change. Our budget announced the measures that we are taking to combat climate change and protect our environment. Our government has reduced emissions, lowered taxes for middle-class families and balanced the budget. What do the Liberals and New Democrats want to do? They want to increase taxes for middle-class families, put Canada back into the red and implement a job-killing carbon tax. [ English ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the G7 is calling for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels by the end of this century. So far the only thing that the Conservatives have been phasing out is environmental protection. Canada is the only country in the world to have withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol. When will the government deliver a real, credible plan to fight climate change instead of leaving Canada with an environmental black eye on the world stage?