Ed Komarnicki

[December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of pitting one group against the other. I just went through the numbers: 165,000 jobs preserved; five weeks of extra benefits for 365,000 Canadians; 40,000 additional long-tenured workers helped; and 190,000 who would benefit from the extension of five to twenty weeks for which the member voted against providing benefits.

I have asked the question. The member failed to address it. Why? Even if he wanted some additional benefits for someone else, why would he oppose benefits to 190,000 when he could have supported that? What was the purpose of that? What was the reasoning behind that? There was no good, valid reason for the party to oppose an extended five to twenty weeks to 190,000 additional people except self-interest. He has not answered the question. I think he should.

[December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the hon. member by asking what he would do about those who have paid premiums for a long time, those who have not collected benefits for many years of work who find themselves without work and are unable find a job. The bill was directed specifically to them.

It does not say that others might not want to have been on the system. We have a certain set of dollars for the particular group we have targeted, those who are hurt most by the unfortunate economic conditions. What would he say to those people? Approximately 190,000 would be benefited by the bill. What would he say to them about the fact that he and his party voted against that bill? If they had their way, those benefits would have been taken away from 190,000 potential recipients.

Even if the member wanted to benefit another group or a different group of people, why would he and his party vote against the bill, other than the fact that at the time they were of the view that they wanted to trigger an election that no one wanted. Therefore, the interest at which those members were looking at that time was self-interest and not the interest of the people who were intended to be benefited from the bill.

The member is right. We have taken many actions to help hundreds of thousands of Canadians through our changes and improvements to the employment insurance program. Indeed, we added five extra weeks of EI benefits to all Canadians on EI. More than 365,000 Canadians have received additional weeks of benefits, thanks to the extra five weeks which were included in our economic action plan.

Therefore, we were not excluding anyone when we did that. All Canadians were affected quickly by the sudden onset of the economic troubles and the large number of layoffs that happened last fall and winter. We took action and provided the five extra weeks of benefits to all who needed them.

However, we did even more than that. We froze the premiums for 2010. We are delivering on our commitment to improve the governance and management of the EI account by establishing the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

We have taken action that is helping businesses and workers immensely in a way that is protecting jobs and helping companies. We are doing this through improved and more accessible work-sharing agreements. That was very well received, preserving jobs that otherwise would not be there. More than 167,000 Canadians were protected by work-sharing agreements, which are in place with almost 6,000 employers across Canada. It is a win situation for the employers and for the employees, and it was very well received.

These jobs are being protected. The workers are being retained by their companies. Their skills are staying up to date. This is a big help to businesses across Canada.

Our government also focused on helping Canadians get back to work so they could provide for their families. That is why we made unprecedented investments in skills training. The career transition assistance program is a new initiative that will help an estimated 40,000 long-tenured workers who need additional support for retraining to find a new job. We have extended the duration of EI regular benefits for eligible workers for up to two years if they are in longer term training. We are allowing earlier access to EI for eligible workers by investing in their training by using all or part of their severance package.

These steps have been taken because we know that those who are unemployed need some extra assistance in not only upgrading themselves, but also finding other jobs. Where possible, we try to preserve their jobs.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question it would be a novel principle if one could pay a premium to get a significant benefit, then after the benefit period expired, decide not to participate in the program. The question has to be looked at on a long-term basis. Do people wish to participate or not? If they do, and claim benefits, they must continue to pay the premium because that is how the premium-benefit ratio is set up.

By and large, the underpinning of the principle is, to the extent possible with the amount that other employees pay, that one would like to see the premiums have some direct correlation with the benefits. It will depend upon the take-up rate. It will depend upon a number of factors. The early projections are that in the initial part of the program, there will be perhaps a surplus and then there will be some deficit. However, after a period of time, when we know what the trends are and the uptake rate is, we will see what the differences will be.

However, by and large, the program has been designed to ensure that the premiums paid are the same as other employees pay and to ensure there is ease in administration, that it is not overly complex and is easy to understand. The way it has been set up, people have some time to decide whether they want to opt in or not. If they do, then they must stay in the program.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, just to address the comments of the member, I know that the Liberal Party opposed the extension of EI benefits by five to twenty weeks for long-tenured workers. That was on the basis, I suppose, that they wanted to force an election that no Canadian wanted.

Having surmounted that part of it and forgetting their own self-interest in trying to generate an election, and I assuming they are past that point, I would certainly hope that notwithstanding the fact they voted against providing support for about 190,000 long-tenured workers, they would actually now have a look at what we are doing by way of providing benefits to the self-employed and disregard their own self-interest and get behind this bill and support it as quickly as possible to ensure that the self-employed will get the benefits.

With respect to ACTRA and the points they have made, they actually testified before the committee and gave their points of view. They thought, as I recall, that this was a very good first step and a movement in the right direction with respect to providing benefits for the self-employed, of which their members certainly compose a large number.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I should preface anything I say by stating that this bill provides, first of all, that those who are not in Quebec will pay the same amount that other employees are paying, but they will only be entitled to special benefits.

Therefore, we will have to see the take-up rate and those kinds of things to see how the premiums balance out with the benefits. That is the way it works for the various benefits provided, and for those with respect to Quebec as well.

The big point is that the suggested premium rate is much less than the cost of private insurance, which is the only option that Quebeckers now have, and thus it provides them with a more affordable option. This bill recognizes that Quebec already provides maternity and parental benefits. Quebeckers who chose to opt in will only pay a premium of $1.36, instead of the $1.73 the rest of Canada will pay.

Therefore, provision and allowance has been made for those in Quebec, and, of course, it is an opt-in program. It is a strictly voluntary program throughout. For those who want to opt in, they will.

Those are the premium rates that have been set for simplicity of administration, for simplicity of operation, and they are consistent with general principles. That is how they are meant to apply. I think the bill, as it is, is exactly what it was intended to be.

I would urge this member and all members to get behind the bill. I might say that we have received the support of one member from the hon. member's party in ensuring that the bill proceeded as we now see it before the House.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to see the bill proceed to this stage.

I am glad to have the opportunity to rise to speak to this important milestone in bringing special benefits under employment insurance to self-employed Canadians. This is one of the most significant enhancements to the EI program in the last decade. It has been a long time coming for self-employed Canadians.

This fulfills a pledge by our Conservative government in 2008 to bring forward EI maternity and parental benefits to self-employed Canadians. A year ago, the Prime Minister said that self-employed Canadians and those who one day hoped to be should not have to choose between starting a family and starting a business because of government policy. They should be able to pursue their dreams both as entrepreneurs and as parents.

In fact, we have surpassed this commitment by also including EI sickness and compassionate care benefits. We do this because self-employed workers deserve to have access to these special benefits. We do this because extending access to special benefits is the fair and the right thing to do.

I think every member of the House recognizes the importance of the self-employment sector in the daily functioning of our economy and of our society.

In over 15% of our labour market self-employed entrepreneurs are a growing influence, not only because of their significant numbers but also because of the wealth of their ideas, innovation and jobs that they generate and create from time to time and year by year.

The self-employed form a diverse group, with widely varying situations and incomes. They include people with small businesses, farmers, construction workers, professionals, tradesmen, those in sales and those who own a home business among many others. Despite their importance, these entrepreneurs do not have the support they need when it comes to the important events of life, such as the birth of a child, adoption, illness and care of a gravely ill family members.

These sorts of events can have a significant impact on the self-employed who have little or no income protection. If they do not work, they do not make any money. Right now, they do not have any of the same EI support measures that Canadians employed by others do.

We are going to change that by implementing a voluntary system. We are following through on our commitment to self-employed Canadians.

It should come as no surprise that our self-employed have long asked for this support. In fact, a large majority of the self-employed want access to these benefits. Recent public opinion research shows that a majority of self-employed Canadians would like to gain access to EI maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits.

Eighty-six per cent of self-employed Canadians support access to sickness benefits, 84% support access to compassionate care benefits and 64% support access to maternity and parental benefits. The message from self-employed Canadians is clear.

Our Conservative government has listened and we are taking action. We recognize the challenges facing working Canadians as they deal with the dual pressure of holding down jobs and caring for their families. We recognize that nearly a third of all self-employed are women of child bearing age.

Our government knows that families are the foundation of our society. The bill is yet another example of how our government is providing support and choice to Canadian families and people recognize that.

Catherine Swift, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, understands the benefits of this bill. On November 4, she said in the Montreal Gazette:

—the initiative fills a “glaring gap” for people running their own business, especially women....We have a lot of women members. They'd like to have a child and yet abandoning your business is not (an option).

We do not want the self-employed to become discouraged about starting families by ever present financial risks associated with running their own business. We certainly do not want their families to suffer because of unequal access to supports that are widely available to most other Canadians.

Given the strength of our country's economy, especially the strength it gets from our self-employed and their businesses as a country, we cannot afford to leave these people out in the cold. Stronger entrepreneurship means a stronger Canada. We need their skills, their experience and their energy and creativity to meet the challenges to come. This is why our government believes these entrepreneurs deserve to have access to EI special benefits.

We also recognize that there is an increasing number of self-employed Canadians who are taking care of elderly parents while also raising young children. The government believes that these entrepreneurs should not have to choose between their business and family responsibilities, whether those responsibilities are for newborns or parents, the young or the elderly.

By giving our self-employed the option for increased income protection, we are allowing individuals who might otherwise have to leave the workforce to stay fully engaged, to stay productive and to keep contributing to this great country of Canada. Not only does this benefit them but it also means that they can continue to make valuable contributions to their communities and the economy.

We are stimulating entrepreneurship and making self-employment more appealing to all Canadians. That is why we are extending access to EI special benefits for the self-employed and why we firmly believe that it is the fair, responsible and right thing to do.

These benefits are significant. They are as follows: 15 weeks of maternity benefits for a birth mother; 35 weeks of parental benefits for parents to care for their newborn or newly adopted child; up to 15 weeks of benefits for individuals who are unable to work because of sickness, injury or quarantine; and a maximum of six weeks to provide care or support to a terminally ill relative.

Under the proposed legislation, self-employed Canadians would voluntarily opt into the program and pay EI premiums on an ongoing basis for at least one year before receiving benefits. To access EI special benefits, they would need to have earned a minimum of $6,000 in self-employed earnings over the preceding calendar year.

The self-employed could opt out of the program at the end of any taxation year, as long as they have never claimed benefits. If they have claimed benefits, they would have to contribute from their self-employed earnings for as long as they are self-employed.

Self-employed Canadians who opt into the EI program would pay the same premium rate as salaried employees. They would not be required to pay the employer portion of premiums, in recognition of the fact that they would not have access to EI regular benefits.

In Quebec, self-employed residents already have access to maternity and parental benefits through the Quebec parental insurance plan. Now the federal government would provide the self-employed in Quebec with the opportunity to gain access to the sickness and compassionate care benefit under the EI program.

Should they choose to take advantage of the program, they would pay the same EI premium rates as employers in Quebec. Rates there have already been adjusted downward to take into account the existence of a provincial maternity and parental benefit plan.

I would like to bring to light an endorsement from an organization representing an important group of self-employed people, the realtors. Dale Ripplinger is the president of the Canadian Real Estate Association. On November 4 his organization issued a press release that it “applauds the government for taking action to address many of the inequities in the Employment Insurance program faced by self-employed REALTORS”.

The organization went on to say, “This is an important step to level the benefits playing field for self-employed Canadians. We look forward to working with the government to ensure access to EI benefits for REALTORS, which can help balance career and family life”.

I also have a quote from the executive director of the Grain Growers of Canada, Richard Phillips. In a news release on November 3, 2009, he said that the legislation is “very welcome. This has huge potential for quality of life in rural Canada”. He continued, “This could be the difference as whether one member of the family has to seek off farm employment because now families will have a choice. With over 200,000 farms in Canada, if even 10% of them choose to take advantage of these programs, this could help ensure another 20,000 more young families staying on the land”.

It is this kind of thing that allows those who are self-employed and who contribute to our economy to get some benefits that are important to them and their families and ensure that they can continue to pursue their careers and jobs.

This legislation is the most significant enhancement to the EI program in the last decade. It is in keeping with our Conservative government's commitment to make the EI program responsive to the needs of Canadian workers. It is just one of the many enhancements that we have already made to the EI program.

We added five extra weeks of EI regular benefits, helping over 365,000 Canadians while they search for new employment.

We enhanced the work sharing program, protecting the jobs of about 165,000 or more Canadians.

We made unprecedented investments in training to help Canadians receive the skills training they need to enter a new career.

Our government froze EI premiums for two years, which helped employers create more jobs and also kept more money in the pockets of employees.

We added a $60 million investment in the targeted initiative for older workers to help older workers, who obviously have invaluable knowledge and mentoring potential, to transition into a new job.

We also passed legislation recently to provide five to twenty weeks of additional EI support benefits for long-tenured workers, who have worked hard, have paid premiums and are looking to transition into a new job.

Most recently, of course, we have introduced this program, which has been very well received by many.

Our government is protecting jobs. We are helping people get trained and upgraded for jobs. Now we have made changes that allow more flexibility for employers' recovery plans.

We have had the career transition assistance initiative, which has been providing assistance to long-tenured workers who need training to transition to a new industry or occupation. The support under Bill C-50 for long-tenured workers was certainly something that was well received.

All of these ventures demonstrate that our Conservative government continues to make responsible choices to support Canadians now, to support Canadians when they need it, to support Canadians when they find themselves in a difficult time.

With Bill C-56, we are taking steps to respond quickly to the needs of self-employed workers, so that they will also be protected in times of need.

Our Conservative government knows that families are the foundation of our great country. We believe that self-employed Canadians should not have to choose between their family and business responsibilities. They should not be forced to choose between one or the other.

Let us all support self-employed workers for their dynamism and their contribution to our economy. Let us create a stronger, more entrepreneur friendly and productive country in the process. Let us get behind our self-employed and do what is right. Let us do what they have been asking for for a long time.

I would urge all members in all parties to support this bill and to get it through the House at the earliest opportunity.

[Housing, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, funding is proceeding and going to over 300 projects.

What is important is that we have made billions of dollars of investments that are there ready, able and willing to deliver as soon as the provinces select the projects. It is their responsibility to select the projects, ensure the projects get built and then they invoice us. The money is there to pay it, moneys that would not have been there if the NDP members had their way.

[Housing, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when we had in our economic action plan a provision for $400 million for seniors, the NDP members voted against it without even reading the budget. We had $75 million for the disabled and they voted against that. We had $1 billion for retrofits and energy upgrades, and they voted against that. Now they are complaining about what is happening.

We have entered into agreements with all the provinces and territories. They know the money is there and is available. As soon as the projects go forward and they bill us, the moneys will be there to pay the bills.

[Housing, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we are doing something that the previous Liberal government failed to do, and that is to allocate billions of dollars for social housing programs. We have entered into agreements. As soon as the invoices come in, the money will continue to flow.

We have $2 billion to repair and renew social housing, $1 billion for repair and upgrades and another $1 billion for renovation; $400 million for seniors; $75 million for those who are disabled, significant investments that the previous government failed to do.

[Housing, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have made historic investments of billions of dollars in housing and social housing, something that the Liberal Party failed to do over 13 years.

We have entered into agreements with the provinces and territories. Those agreements are now in place and as the provinces go forward with selecting the projects and give us the invoices, they will be receiving the money.