Ed Komarnicki

[October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot have it both ways. She wants to lower premiums and at the same time spend more.

What we will not do is balance the budget on the backs of the unemployed, as the Liberals did. We will not take $50 billion from the EI program and we will not cut transfers to provinces and municipalities by $25 billion. Anyone can balance the budget doing that kind of thing. We will not do that.

Liberals have two ideas, a 360-hour work year or a two-month work year, in which people would work for two months of the year and then collect EI. We will not support that.

Liberals also like to say no. They said no to Bill C-50. They said no to Canadians, they said no to long-tenured workers. What good is saying no to any Canadian, even one Canadian? What does that do for hard-working Canadians who have worked for many years in the automotive industry and find themselves out of work? It does nothing. No will not help them.

What will it do for forestry workers? It will do nothing. It will not help one forestry worker if Liberals vote no on Bill C-50 or any of its clauses. What will it do for manufacturing workers? It will do absolutely nothing. The stand the Liberals are taking will do nothing and that is wrong.

[October 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the member had to say about the regional variable entrance requirements but I should remind her and her party that that was introduced during their term of office when the unemployment rate was at 8.7%. I might also remind the member that the Liberals tried to balance the budget and the books on the backs of the unemployed by taking approximately $50 billion from the EI fund and using it for general revenue. At the same time, they tried to balance the budget by taking $25 billion and cutting it from the transfer payments to the provinces and municipalities. The member needs to remember where this came from and she needs to look at the larger picture.

We have taken steps under the economic action plan and under the employment insurance program to help those who are unemployed. We have given five extra weeks of benefits across the country to those who require it. We have spent billions of dollars to help people upgrade their skills and their training. We froze the EI premiums for 2010-11 to the same level as they were in 2009 and 2008, the lowest level in a quarter century.

We have assisted employers and employees with work-sharing agreements, allowing people to claim EI and continue to work share. We have helped about 5,000 employers across the country and 167,000 Canadians.

We put the career transition assistance program together, helping about 40,000 long term workers to benefit from training for two years or more. We have put together the bill that the hon. member refers to, Bill C-50, which would bridge that particular program by adding 5 to 20 weeks of benefits to help ensure these long tenured workers who have paid into EI for years, who have not benefited from the system and who now find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own, are able to quality for extra benefits.

I have a hard time understanding how that member, her leader and all members of that party stood in the House and voted against helping approximately 190,000 long tenured workers, a figure that I know she disagrees with. If she had been in committee today, she would know how the 190,000 was justified, but it is a lot of workers who are being helped with 5 to 20 weeks.

How does she sit in the House and face those workers and say that she voted against that bill in the House and voted against every clause? We went through the bill clause by clause today in committee and every member from her party voted against that. On top of all of the other benefits that we are doing for the unemployed, why would they stand in the House and vote against them, except for the purpose of wanting an election. The basis and the premise of their voting against the bill in the first place was self-interest as opposed to the interest of the unemployed who find themselves without work and who need extra benefits.

We are putting a bill before the House that, fortunately, is being supported and will eventually pass through the House. How does the hon. member justify not supporting that? Is that finding solutions? No, it is not. Is it finding solutions for long tenured workers? No, it is not.

We are working to extend benefits to self-employed workers. We are getting Canadians back to work, not only through historic investments, through infrastructure and through the steps we have taken on the economic action plan, but, for those who are not able to do that, we have taken steps to bridge the gap, to be there for them when they need us and we have not done it on their backs. We have not balanced the books, as the Liberal Party did back in the nineties, on the backs of the unemployed, on RNs, on municipalities and on the lack of infrastructure. We are not doing that and we will not do that. We will take steps to stand behind those who need us at this difficult economic time, and that is exactly what we have done.

The member and her party should get behind us and support Bill C-50 that would help approximately 190,000 Canadians who are out of work and would have the benefit of approximately $1 billion over three years. That is something that is significant and substantive and she should support it.

[Petitions, October 20th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, a number of petitioners would like to draw the attention of the House to a number of things. First, the current long gun registry program is an ineffective and costly program. It has cost taxpayers in excess of $2 billion. The long gun registry program has not reduced violent gun crimes as intended and it unfairly targets farmers, hunters and sport shooters. They therefore ask the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to support Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry).

[Museums, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, so the member can understand, and as I said previously, we have urged the parties to come together and work to reach an agreement in the interest of all Canadians.

We have appointed a federal mediator. He had been working with the parties even before the strike began. He continues to work with them to bring them to the point of solution.

[Canadian Heritage, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first answer, if the member was listening, we are monitoring the situation. We are urging the parties to get back to the bargaining table.

We have appointed a federal mediator. He has been working with the parties. It is important that the parties work in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Post-secondary Education, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government is negotiating with the Government of Quebec with respect to student assistance. However, we have put a number of programs together for students to put more grants in their hands, $250 a month to low-income Canadians and $100 a month to middle-income Canadians. There are 100,000 more students benefiting than under the previous Liberal government and the Bloc has voted against those proposals and against students across the country.

[Employment Insurance, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will share what we are hearing. Yesterday in committee we heard from the Canadian Labour Congress and the United Steelworkers, both which support speedy passage of Bill C-50.

However, the witness that had the greatest impact was Rosalie Washington, who lost her job after 20 years. She literally pleaded with all parties to support the bill. It will provide her with much needed help so she can put food on the table for her three children.

The Liberal leader should stop caring only about himself, start caring about hard-hit Canadians like Rosalie Washington and support our bill.

[Canadian Heritage, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a federal mediator has been working with the parties even before the strike began and continues to work with them to bring about a solution. We are monitoring the situation closely. We are urging the parties to come to an agreement in the interests of all Canadians.

[Pensions, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we can safely say that the Canada pension plan is intact, the old age security is intact and the guaranteed income supplement program is intact.

We have done more for seniors in two years than the Liberal government did in 13 years. We have established a minister of state for seniors and a national council for seniors so we can listen to seniors and do things for them. We introduced pension income splitting, doubled the pension income tax credit and raised the GIS exemption from $500 to $3,500.

We have done a number of things for seniors that the Liberals failed and refused to do over 13 years.

[October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that he is not ashamed of voting no to all our proposals, but he and his party should be ashamed for voting against proposals that would help 165,000 people keep their jobs. They voted against that for some ideological reason. They voted against billions of dollars going into extended training and skills upgrading. He should be ashamed of voting against that.

We have helped about 190,000 people in one fashion or another to maintain their jobs so they can buy food for their families and keep their homes, but the member voted against that.

How can he stand up in good conscience and say that he is not ashamed of voting against proposals that would help hard-working Canadians who have paid into the system, who have worked hard and now find themselves in an unfortunate situation? Why would the member turn his back on those particular workers by voting against our proposals and then say that he is not ashamed of it?