Ed Komarnicki

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 5th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities, in relation to the main estimates 2012-13.

[Rail Transportation, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Labour met with CP Rail and with the Teamsters Union to try to encourage and facilitate an agreement that would have avoided a work stoppage. While the parties continued to negotiate until yesterday, the union began strike action on Wednesday, May 23.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric of the parties opposite, labour stability in the rail sector is critical to the functioning of the Canadian economy, the continued economic recovery and the confidence of Canadian businesses and the Canadian public.

Could the Minister of Labour please, once again, give the House an update on the status of the labour negotiations at CP Rail?

[Continuation and Resumption of Rail Service Operations Legislation, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the energy and resources minister of Saskatchewan, now minister of the economy, had some grave concerns about the fact that three potash companies in Saskatchewan need to move their potash during a peak season and are concerned about that. Also, the grain and oilseed business requires the movement of those products to provide cash flow for prairie farmers. He is quite concerned about the impact that this might have on the economy.

Could the minister comment on the impact any prolonged work stoppage may mean to those particular industries, and others as well?

[New Democratic Party of Canada, May 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader continues to say one thing in one part of the country that he will not say elsewhere. Canadians are noticing and the Premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta have called him out for criticizing responsible resource development.

The NDP leader is trying to pit Canadians against one another instead of supporting sectors of the economy that create good. high paying jobs.

Yesterday, the NDP trotted out Lorne Nystrom, a senior advisor to the NDP leader, to say that the NDP leader will soon clarify the no development party's position against gives jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. This is totally unacceptable. Canadians are not buying it.

Premier Redford said this about the NDP leader, “I always think it's better for people to comment once they have the information than before they do”.

Using a former Saskatchewan MP to try to cover up the NDP leader's real position, its anti-jobs, anti-growth agenda is not going unnoticed by the people of the Prairies and, in particular, the people of Saskatchewan.

[Old Age Security, May 10th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak to the motion.

Let me make our position clear. We could have been in favour of Motion No. 307, as we agree with many of the points in the motion. However, we cannot agree with the text that calls for the age of eligibility for OAS to remain at 65, as such a move would threaten the sustainability of the program.

Our government attempted to reach a compromise with the member opposite to amend the motion, but the member expressed no interest in negotiating with us on this matter.

Unfortunately, the opposition continues to play political games with this most serious of matters. Our government will not be so irresponsible. We have introduced changes to the OAS program that would gradually increase the age of OAS eligibility from 65 to 67 years of age, starting in 2023.

We have witnessed the spectacle of the opposition members trying to scare current OAS recipients into believing their benefits will be affected. I can assure all current OAS recipients and all Canadians over the age of 54 that as of March 31 of this year their benefits would not be affected and they would see no change to their OAS eligibility.

The opposition seems to still, after many hours of debate on this topic, not understand the facts of the situation or choose not to understand the facts.

The OAS program is the single largest problem the Government of Canada has. It was established in 1952, at a time that was quite different from the one we now face. All of this needs to be reviewed, viewed and looked at in this context.

In the 1970s there were seven working age Canadians for every senior. Currently, there are four working age Canadians per retired senior. In 20 years there will only be two working age Canadians for every senior. It would seem obvious that some action and something needs to be done.

How does the member opposite believe his program is sustainable on its current path? Is it fair to Canadian workers 20 years from now, who would see serious job-killing increases in taxes, to pay for the short-sightedness of previous generations, or would that future worker see other government services cut to the bone to pay for an ever-increasing expense of OAS? What kind of legacy do we want to leave to those who come after us?

In 1970 the average 65-year-old could expect to live to 81. Today, that has increased by four years. With people living longer, they are collecting OAS benefits for an increasing number of years. Put them all together, and the cost of the OAS program, if left unchanged, would go from approximately $38 billion in 2011 to $108 billion in 2030.

Therefore, something had to be done to ensure that the OAS would be sustainable in the face of demographic realities. A responsible government does not shirk from its duty in the face of such a challenge. Even if it is difficult or uncomfortable, the responsibility is there to act.

A responsible government acts in the best interests of Canadians, including those who will come after us. That is why we have announced specific steps in our last budget.

The age of eligibility for old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement would be gradually raised from age 65 to 67, starting in April 2023, with full implementation by January 2029.

Given that life expectancy has been increasing, even with the increase in the OAS eligibility age to 67, people who turn 65 in 2030 can expect to receive OAS benefits for about the same number of years over their lifetime as seniors who turn 65 today.

The economic action plan will ensure that the OAS program will be on a sustainable path to ensure that it will be there for future generations.

Our government will also ensure that certain federal programs, including those provided by Veterans Affairs Canada and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, currently providing income support benefits until age 65 will be aligned with changes in the OAS program.

Our government will discuss the impact of the changes to the OAS program on CPP disability and survivor benefits with provinces and territories, which are joint stewards of the CPP, during the next tri-annual review of the CPP. We will also compensate the provinces for the net additional costs they may face resulting from increasing the age of eligibility for OAS benefits.

Starting on July 1, 2013, we will give people the flexibility to voluntarily defer receiving their OAS pension for up to five years in exchange for a higher actuarially adjusted pension. This will give Canadians a choice of taking up their OAS pension at a later time if they decide it is better for their individual retirement plans.

We have taken steps to make these changes gradually to OAS. The increase in the age of eligibility of OAS and GIS benefits will not affect anyone who is 54 years of age or older as of March 31, 2012. The increase in the age of eligibility of allowance for survivor benefits will not affect anyone who is 49 years of age or older as of March 31, 2012. The 11-year notification and the subsequent 6 year phase-in period will allow those affected by these changes ample time to make adjustments to their retirement plans.

As members can see, we are allowing Canadians the time needed to plan for their retirement.

Many other countries have recently increased or announced plans to increase the eligibility ages of their public pension plans. These include Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and Korea.

As David Dodge, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and deputy minister of finance, said recently in an interview, “we're at least 15 years late in getting started in raising the age of entitlement for...OAS. We can't wait any longer to make these changes. Inaction is not an option in this situation”.

He makes a good point that is shared by many.

The cost of the OAS program is poised to soar as the baby boomer generation retires. In fact, the first of the baby boomers started to turn 65 in 2011.

In summary, it is the responsibility of the federal government to think of the future and to act in the long-term interests of Canadians. Sadly, the opposition has refused to acknowledge the realities of our aging population in order to play political games. Private sector economists, financial institutions and former Bank of Canada governors have confirmed that we must act now to make the OAS program sustainable.

Our goal is to strengthen the financial security of Canadian workers and families over the next few years and over the next generation. The OAS program was a great step forward in 1952. We now need to take another step forward and bring it into the 21st century. We want to position Canada as one of the world's advanced economies, a country that looks after its own and builds towards its future.

That is why I am asking the member for Charlottetown to co-operate with us, and all members of the House, to ensure the sustainability of the old age security program.

I hope the opposition members, particularly the member for Charlottetown, have been persuaded by these arguments. I would therefore give them another opportunity to do the right thing and work with our government in the interest of future generations.

I move the following: That this motion be amended by substituting the words in sub-point (c) with the words, “commit to maintaining the sustainability of the OAS program”, instead of the original wording of, “commit to maintaining the sixty-five year qualifying age contained in section 3 of the Old Age Security Act”.

[Governor General's Honourees, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two of my constituents who were recently presented with honours by the Governor General here in Ottawa.

Darren Bieber of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, was awarded the Medal of Bravery for his heroic efforts in rescuing a passenger from a submerged vehicle on April 28, 2007, just outside Stoughton, Saskatchewan. Mr. Bieber, along with Mark Janke of Elbow, Saskatchewan, took care of the survivors until emergency crews arrived on the scene.

Also, Larry Pearson from Weyburn was presented with the Caring Canadian Award for his work in recognizing members of the Canadian Forces, although he himself has never served. Mr. Pearson is active in the Weyburn branch of the Royal Canadian Legion and is committed to ensuring that our men and women in uniform are honoured by Canadians for all that they do.

As the member of Parliament for Souris—Moose Mountain and on behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to congratulate Mr. Bieber and Mr. Pearson on their recent awards.

[Canada Pension Plan, April 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our government cannot support Bill C-326. It is not in the best interests of Canadians nor in the best interests of seniors or taxpayers.

I know the bill itself proposes that, rather than having the payments monthly, they would be made biweekly. The member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor would say it is a small thing, in terms of the change. However, it is a big thing, in terms of the costs that would be involved and what would be passed on to taxpayers. The member for York West, who was for a short time minister of human resources, would know that these matters administratively cost a lot of money. There is a lot of bureaucracy involved. These proposed changes would needlessly increase expenses and add to the bureaucratic administration of the government at a time when we are looking at ways to reduce spending and ensure more efficient operation of government.

Let me assure members in the House that as a government, we are committed to ensuring Canadians receive the benefits to which they are eligible. There is no question about that. That is why we brought in automatic renewal of the OAS and GIS for seniors who file a tax return.

We also announced in our economic action plan 2012 that we would be proactively enrolling Canadians for their old age security benefits to ensure that every senior receives their full entitlement. We are acting to ensure that government services are streamlined, efficient and take less effort for Canadians to receive the services they deserve.

The current system of monthly payments is the most efficient way to administer old age security and Canada pension plan programs. While we can never be sure exactly how many seniors would take advantage of a biweekly payment schedule, it would not be unrealistic to expect we would almost double the number of transactions for CPP and OAS benefits. Service Canada and Public Works and Government Services Canada estimate that the total cost would increase by $40 million to $50 million per year. It is a small change maybe, but potentially quite costly. We certainly have to take that into account when we are considering streamlining government and reducing expenses.

In this time of fiscal restraint, our government is committed to delivering the highest quality service in a way that is efficient, effective and focused on the needs of Canadians. As we recently highlighted in Canada's economic action plan 2012, the government has recently completed significant reviews aimed at reducing government bureaucracy.

The most immediate exercise was the government's deficit reduction action plan. This exercise examined government spending to reduce overlap redundancy in administrative costs and ensure value for taxpayer dollars. This review demonstrated our resolve as a government to put taxpayers first, while making strategic choices to ensure efficient government spending well into the future.

The second exercise was the red tape panel that led to a one-to-one rule. The principle is quite simple. Every time the government creates a regulation, the department has to eliminate a regulation. This would make interaction with government much more efficient, while also simplifying the administration of government.

I do not understand why the member opposite would like to add to the bureaucratic processes of government. We recognize that today's seniors have played, and continue to play, a vital role in Canadian society. There is no doubt about that. By working hard throughout their lives and paying taxes, they have contributed to Canada's strong fiscal foundation. They continue to contribute by offering their wisdom, their talent and their time in their communities. They are role models for all of us.

Our government is committed to improving the well-being of Canadian seniors. We are certainly open to exploring ways to better assist these respected and valued members of our communities now and into the future. We have made provision for the retirement benefits to be more convenient for seniors.

However, we must question whether the measures proposed in Bill C-326 would address the real problem.

Does the monthly payment system really need fixing? Would a biweekly system really give value for money? If not, it would be irresponsible for us to impose yet another layer of process and drive up unnecessary spending at a time when taxpayers expect us to be prudent in handling their hard-earned money.

Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to complete Canada's economic recovery and return to balanced budgets. This is exactly what we are doing.

Payment processing already involves several departments acting in conjunction. There is more involved than most would think. The processing cost of a single cheque or direct deposit may not seem like much when looked at in isolation, but when the government is issuing millions of cheques and deposits each month, it becomes a whole different matter.

The changes could actually have unintended consequences for seniors that are not desirable. The proposed changes would also increase the burden on the system, just as we are facing increased financial pressures from a growing population of seniors. As members of the House are well aware, the first of Canada's baby boomer generation started to turn 65 in 2011. Within less than two decades, almost one in four Canadians will be over 65. Looking at these numbers alone, the coming challenges are evident. It is important to understand that distributing benefits to seniors requires a lot of organization and coordination.

To ensure the efficient delivery of all benefit payments, Service Canada works in partnership with Public Works and Government Services Canada, Canada Post and the banking sector to coordinate the financial transfers of benefits payments. Each organization has developed work plans around a payment date that is the third last banking day of each month.

This practice of paying all benefits at the end of the month was adopted to provide the best service possible in a cost-effective way. Monthly payments are the commonly accepted standard for government benefits. I want to point out that most federal benefits are paid out on a monthly basis: benefits paid by Veterans Affairs Canada, the universal child care benefit and the child tax benefit, among others. Monthly payments are also typical in programs for seniors in the majority of countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Payments made monthly are also the norm for most seniors benefits in Canada at the provincial and territorial level. Let me expand on this last point quickly. There are several provincial and territorial programs that base their benefit level on an individual's OAS and GIS payments. If we changed things at the federal level, it would mean that the systems at the provincial level would also need to be changed to reflect this fact. In the highly automated environment governments operate in today, something that may seem like a small change can have a considerable ripple effect.

In a time of spending restraints it would be difficult to justify the costs involved in changing the system, based on an argument of convenience in changing it from monthly to biweekly.

We fully understand the importance of a secure and dignified retirement for hard-working Canadians. OAS and CPP are the first two pillars of Canada's retirement income system and play a significant role in providing income security to Canadians in their senior years. There can be no question of our commitment to ensure that Canadians receive the benefits for which they are eligible and entitled. However, the change proposed in Bill C-326 would further complicate the system without addressing any pressing need.

The additional cost involved would only draw funding away to underwrite the administrative process. These funds could be better spent on measures that would truly help seniors and other Canadians.

For these reasons our government is in favour of keeping the legislated monthly payment schedule of CPP and OAS. My colleagues and I cannot support Bill C-326. It would be an irresponsible use of taxpayers' dollars.

I would urge members opposite to reconsider their position, to look at the ramifications of what they are suggesting, to look at the millions of cheques and deposits that have to be made, the numbers of departments that would be involved and the bureaucracy that it would take to get there. I urge them to reconsider whether they want to spend those kinds of dollars, those kinds of efforts and that kind of energy to achieve merely the advanced payment from monthly to biweekly when the system we have now is working. It is timely, it has developed, it is something people have come to expect and something that has been a common practice in other areas as well. Other services use that model. It has been something Canadians have accepted over the years and it is something that the opposition should look at. That money could be better spent doing other things for seniors or other members of the Canadian public.

I would ask them to reconsider their position and not proceed with this unnecessary amendment at this time.

[Foreign Affairs, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canada remains deeply troubled with the apparent arbitrary and politically biased nature of judicial proceedings against Ms.Tymoshenko and other individuals, proceedings which undermine the rule of law.

The government has shown tremendous leadership on this file. In February it paved the way for three Canadian doctors to participate in an international medical commission to assess the health of Ms.Tymoshenko.

Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs kindly give the House an update on the actions the government has taken since the independent medical commission?

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to “A Framework for Success: Practical Recommendations to Further Shorten the Foreign Qualification Recognition Process”.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to these amendments, but I am not pleased to support them. Neither would the member for Cariboo—Prince George, for sure. By amending each of the five clauses in the bill, by deleting them, it takes all the provisions out of there and only the title and the enactment provisions will be left, and I suppose that would go as well.

It is fair to say that the government will not be supporting these amendments for the reasons that are obvious, based on what I just said.

Last year, our government passed legislation to prevent federal inmates over the age of 65, who were sentenced to prison for more than two years, from collecting old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits. This relates to the qualifying period, and I do not think the legislation pretends to say it deals with receiving or not receiving employment insurance while in prison. It deals with extending the qualifying period and the benefits period.

We brought forward the previous legislation because Canadians told us it was not fair that criminals could collect retirement benefits while they were incarcerated, especially since their living expenses were already covered by taxpayers. We are supporting this further reform to our social programs in the interest of fairness and justice for law-abiding Canadians.

Under the Employment Insurance Act as it now stands, people who have been in jail can get an extension, as the member has mentioned, of up to 52 additional weeks of their employment insurance qualifying and benefit periods. We think this EI extension is unfair as it provides preferential access for convicted criminals to benefits over law-abiding citizens.

Let me outline how employment insurance works.

Employment insurance is intended to provide temporary income to replace lost wages while the claimant looks for a job. To be eligible for EI regular benefits, people must have paid EI premiums and have worked a certain minimal number of insurable hours, depending on the region of the country in which they live. They must have worked those hours in the 52 weeks before the interruption of the earnings. This is what is called the “qualifying period”.

When people qualify for EI benefits, a 52-week benefit period is established during which they may collect EI benefits to which they are entitled. Normally claimants must be able and willing to work. However, the qualifying period or the benefits period may be extended for up to two years for people in special situations. People who are unable to look for work because of illness, injury, pregnancy or quarantine are given an extension or they may apply for an extension so they do not lose their right to EI benefits because of the special circumstances or situations that are beyond their control.

To be clear, we are all in agreement that extensions to individuals should be granted for life circumstances beyond the control of the individual, such as injury or illness. However, this is not the case with the person who commits a crime.

To be convicted of a crime, an individual makes a choice resulting in a criminal act. This choice is within the control of the individual. However, the current EI legislation treats imprisonment as a circumstance beyond a person's control. This logic does not follow. It does not make sense to most Canadians who feel this is not fair because people do not commit crimes by accident.

Going to prison is not something that just happens to a person. It is a matter of bad choices, perhaps a series of bad choices. It is not like getting a serious sickness or disease or being involved in a car accident. It is something that people bring on themselves by the actions they have taken. These are people who are convicted and the view is that they should not be given preferential treatment or access over law-abiding citizens who are limited to 52 weeks instead of 104 weeks. As a result, there would be an increase in the cost of the program to ordinary working Canadians if the extension were not removed.

Extensions of the qualifying and benefit periods are not available to most EI claimants, and that is an important distinction and something at which we need look. Why should there be an available extension to someone who is a prison inmate?

That is why I would urge the House to support Bill C-316, which will correct this aberration, and not support the amendments which would take that away.

Now, some will argue that amending the Employment Insurance Act to remove the right of inmates to an EI extension would be unfair to innocent people who have simply been detained before trial and were eventually not convicted. That is a fair point and we agreed with it.

This is why the government moved amendments to the bill that would allow qualifying and benefit period extensions for people who were on remand prior to a verdict, but who were ultimately found not guilty. We have said that just the fact of being in prison or incarcerated is not going to disentitle someone, but actually being convicted will. Anyone who was in prison but not convicted would still be able to apply for the extension.

An extension may be granted for the time spent incarcerated if the person is acquitted, the charges are dropped or there is a mistrial. This is because individuals were unavailable for work because they were charged with a crime they were not guilty of, and it was not something of their choosing. These individuals could apply to Service Canada for an EI extension as long as they could prove they were found not guilty of the offence for which they were detained.

Another objective I have heard about the bill is that denying EI benefits to prisoners is cruel because it leaves them with nothing to live on when they are eventually released. That may have been the case in days gone by, but there are halfway houses now. There are programs in place on which they can rely.

Our government supports legislation to fight crime and improve security for all Canadians. To that end, we believe our initiatives ought to highlight responsibilities as well as rights. People who break the law should understand they are accountable for their own actions.

Bill C-316 should be supported by all members of the House to improve fairness in the EI system.

In previous debate on this bill in both houses and in the committee, I heard the opposition go to great lengths to defend this distinction. I think it is one that most Canadians would not want us to defend.

In other cases, like paternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits, our government has gone further in helping Canadians balance their work and family life and responsibility.

That is why, for the first time ever, we have granted access to EI special benefits to hard-working people who are self-employed as well. These EI benefits come from premiums that are paid employers and employees. Every time there is an extension, it costs the program and it relates to the premiums that are paid. People want to be sure, as we do, that those premiums will result in benefits that can be justified.

We also wanted to be fair to members of the Canadian Forces who were ordered to return to duty while on parental leave or whose parental leave was deferred as a result of a military requirement.

Our government introduced measures to extend the time that EI parental benefits could be taken for these families. We wanted to be fair to people who could not work because they were caring for loved ones or who were seriously ill. That is why we modified the eligibility criteria of the EI compassionate care benefits to broaden the definition of family members.

This is the type of legislation that Canadians want us to proceed with, but they do want to be sure that where the system is found not be fair and equitable that corrections are made. They want to be sure that those discrepancies are taken care of.

It is not fair to say that those who are incarcerated by acts of their own choosing should somehow have an extension to their benefit and qualifying period by an additional period of time when ordinary Canadians do not benefit from an extension such as that.

There is a clear distinction between getting a special benefit or being able to apply for a special benefit when people have been met with circumstances beyond their control and getting a special benefit in a situation where they do have control and their action caused them to lose the ability to make that application.

I think most fair-minded Canadians would say that if individuals have committed a crime, they should not, because of that, be entitled to some kind of special benefit that other Canadians who have not committed crimes are not entitled to. That is the logic and that is why it is important to for us to correct the system. Even though it would result in millions of dollars of savings, it is the principle behind this that most Canadians would find offensive, which is why they want us to take action.

We will take action, which is why we proceeded with this bill. I would ask for the support of all members of the House.