Ed Komarnicki

[Fillmore-Creelman Legion, November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would l like to pay tribute to the Fillmore-Creelman Legion that includes Osage, Tyvan and area.

I attended a memorial hall Remembrance Day service in the small town of Creelman, population about 100. When the war list was read, we heard enlisted in the first world war were 77, 23 dead. Enlisted in the second world war were 171, 17 dead.

These types of numbers were common to all communities in Souris—Moose Mountain. This had to affect everyone in the community, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, neighbours and friends. No one was left untouched.

The most touching part of the service came when everyone wearing a poppy walked to the front and planted their poppy in a step of personal remembrance, the veterans, dignitaries, the choir, the young, the old and the man on crutches. Everyone was personally counted in.

It is not those sitting in ivory towers that most preserve the way of life we hold dear today, but the soldiers who gave of themselves that we might live the life to which we are accustomed.

Congratulations to Creelman, Fillmore and area for a special service. Well done.

[Employment Insurance, November 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that Bill C-50 has received royal assent. This means that unemployed Canadians, long-tenured workers, can now receive between five and twenty weeks of extra EI support while they transition into a new job.

Shamefully and regrettably, the Liberal leader and members of his party voted against these hard-working Canadians at every stage in the House and in committee.

While the Liberal leader continues to disappoint those hardest hit, it is our Conservative government that will continue to stand up for hard-working Canadians and their families in their hour of need.

[Employment Insurance, November 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our economic action plan is working.

Our Conservative government provided five extra weeks of EI, which benefited over 300,000 unemployed Canadians.

We made unprecedented investments in skills training to get Canadians back to work. We have expanded work-sharing which is currently protecting the jobs of over 165,000 Canadians.

I am proud to announce that our bill to provide extra support for long-tenured workers has received royal assent, despite the shameful opposition by the Liberal leader and members of his party. I have no idea what they have against those hardest hit by the global recession.

We are getting results for Canadians and we will always stand up for those who need--

[Employment, November 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that thousands of jobs have been created for students and young people this summer. We have invested over $20 million over two years for Canada summer jobs and created 40,000 jobs. We have done a number of things to create jobs and to help those unemployed.

I would like to ask the member, why would he oppose aid to those who are unemployed?

[November 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, obviously we are doing whatever we can to ensure that we can help those who are affected in their workplace. We have done that with skills training and upgrading with $1.5 billion, on top of $2.5 billion. We froze EI premiums that will in itself insert about $10 billion into the economy. Wherever the unemployment rate goes higher, it takes less weeks to qualify for longer benefits.

As I mentioned, Bill C-50 has passed. It adds 5 to 20 weeks of benefits as a bridge to the career assistance plan program. The self-employed will be able to enter the program. There is the five extra weeks we have added across the board, and we have extended the work-sharing program. We have made it more flexible.

We are always monitoring what is happening in the economy. We have been reacting to it as we felt appropriate and reasonable. We will continue to monitor the situation. We will see where it goes from there.

[November 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there is no question this member raised a very technical point during her original question; however, today she speaks more generally.

As she may well know, we have Bill C-50 that would extend benefits by 5 to 20 weeks, which I understand has passed through the Senate and is receiving royal assent, or has. There is Bill C-56 for the self-employed, five extra weeks of benefits across the board, and work-sharing programs. Those are all significant improvements and there is the freezing of the EI rate.

Specifically to the question she raised and in dealing with the situation described especially in her original comments, HRSDC and Service Canada take many steps to help employers and Canadian workers. Whenever there is a threat of a company facing mass layoffs, Service Canada immediately moves in to work with the company, with the employees and with the union, if there is one, to try to reach an agreement that will help all of them get through difficult times.

It may be through work-sharing, a program we have enhanced for Canadians. It may be advising them of potential benefits, including the option for them to continue with long-term work studies so they can upgrade their skills. During this difficult time, the supplemental unemployment benefit program, or SUB as it is known, allows employers to provide top-up payments to claimants who are receiving EI benefits during a period of temporary unemployment, training or illness.

I should explain that one of the main objectives of the SUB program is to stabilize an employer's workforce. The reasoning is that workers will be more inclined to return to work when they are recalled. Moreover, if the claimants do return to their old workplace, they will be avoiding the need to go through the retraining process. So it is a win-win situation for everyone. The program is also designed to mitigate the adverse financial impacts that communities would suffer when massive temporary layoffs occur.

Please be assured that in the event of a temporary layoff, the payments under such plans are not deducted from the claimant's EI benefits nor are the payments during the waiting period. If the layoff is permanent, any employer payments to the claimant to top-up EI benefits would not be considered SUB payments.

The difference is that the workers will not be returning to work for that employer. In such a situation, the employers top-up payments to the EI benefits would be classified as earnings. As such, these earnings would be deducted from the EI benefits that were paid.

I should stress, however, that as a result of the working while on claim pilot project, claimants can earn up to 40% of their EI benefit rate before any deductions are made. This went into force December 2008. I would like to clarify that there is a short time during the mandatory two-week waiting period when there is no allowable amount of earnings. Any earnings during this period are deducted dollar for dollar.

This is the situation in the matter referred to by my colleague in her original question, and is somewhat technical in nature. As members can see, we are doing whatever possible whenever we can to ensure that the claimants do not endure unnecessary hardship. Where possible we try to work with them to make the situation better.

[Employment Insurance, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government believes that self-employed Canadians should not be forced to choose between their family and business responsibilities.

That is why for the first time in history, self-employed Canadians will have access to all special benefits under the EI system. There are 2.6 million self-employed Canadians who have long asked for this support, and for 13 long years the Liberals completely ignored them.

Self-employed Canadians now have a Conservative government that takes action and continues to stand up for Canadian families.

[Employment Insurance Act, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I quite frankly cannot understand it. I do not know what the Bloc would have against older workers or the vulnerable. I do not understand that. With regard to the Liberal Party specifically, I have no idea why those members would turn their backs on the most vulnerable and the unemployed. They walked away from having any input in the system, and then when we brought forward a program, they vote against it.

The only rationalization I can see is that the Liberal leader, in his own self-interest and for his own personal reasons, would like to have an opportunistic election that no one else in Canada wants. Not one Canadian can understand why he would want an election, why he would oppose a bill simply to bring us down even if it would help those who need help the most. It is not--

[Employment Insurance Act, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the skills upgrading program, I would like to mention one of the other initiatives we took, which was the work-sharing program which allowed people to keep their jobs.

There have been many quotes from a number of industries stating that it was a win-win situation for employers. They were able to retain the workers they needed the most because it would be difficult to get trained staff when the economy recovers. Workers were able to continue their jobs. A significant number of workers, 167,000, were helped with this program.

We have targeted $60 million specifically for older workers for skills training. These workers have a lot to add to our society given their wisdom and their age.

Our government has invested $500 million in training to help about 40,000 long-tenured workers participate in these programs so they will be upgraded. Some of these programs last 104 weeks, that is almost two years, a significant period of time.

We have provided $1.5 billion to the provinces and territories under existing labour agreements. They have the infrastructure to do something with this money. It can get out there very quickly and it allows them to manage it.

When we add all this together, we have made a significant effort toward helping those who are most vulnerable and in particular need because of the economy as it is now, but not only for now but into the future as well.

[Employment Insurance Act, November 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I just referred to Craig Riddell, the University of British Columbia professor and member of the Expert Panel on Older Workers, who indicated that those who are having greater difficulty are the long-tenured workers, and they are the ones we specifically want to help.

What I find difficult to understand is how the member and the Liberal Party have chosen to turn their backs on the most vulnerable and the unemployed by walking away from the committee that was studying additional benefits that had to do with what might go forward into the future. They abandoned that track and allowed us to introduce this specific legislation and what we are proposing also for the self-employed. Then they had the audacity to vote against the bill and every clause of the bill as it proceeded through the House and through committee. They voted against 190,000 potential workers who could benefit from this program.

How does the member square that? What does he tell them? How does he look them in the face and say that he opposed this legislation and that if he had his way, they would get nothing?

I do not understand that. It makes absolutely no sense to me. No matter what other benefits we could provide, this is a particular benefit of almost $1 billion over three years. Why would he not support it?