Ed Komarnicki

[June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member should speak to the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who says that we want to have the variance across the regions to allow for those that are in high unemployment areas to receive more benefits for less hours. Maybe the Liberals could decide which way they are going on this issue.

Despite the vast increase in the number of applications that have been made, they have been processed by and large in the same time before the increase, and that is significant. We have invested $60 million. We have hired additional staff, 900 people, and an additional 400 will be hired. We have done some administrative things to improve processing. What we will not do is go forward with the 45-day work year that the Liberals have proposed and increase job-killing payroll taxes or increase taxes.

The Leader of the Opposition said “We will have to raise taxes”. If the Liberals want to go that route, that is what we will do at exactly the worst possible time for employers and employees alike. We do not want to kill jobs. We want to create jobs and ensure people are able to benefit from the skills training that we have in our program.

[June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for a moment I thought the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming was going to say he applauded the number of enhancements we have made to the system. However, I gather he took some exception to that.

I am happy to share with the member the many helpful steps the government has taken to help Canadians during this difficult time. There is no question that there are vulnerable, unemployed Canadians. We understand that, and that is why we are taking action to make things better.

We are making unprecedented investments to help those who, through no fault of their own, have suffered unexpected job loss during this global recession. With respect to managing EI claims, which the member referred to, we have invested more than $60 million to help manage and process these claims more quickly, while cutting red tape for employers. The evidence is there month to month to show that these claims are being processed, notwithstanding the increase in the numbers of them.

This investment is on top of the many other administrative efforts we have taken to ensure quicker processing and service for Canadian families. We will continue to ensure processing can take place in a reasonable time.

We have also taken steps to provide additional help to Canadians who have been particularly hard hit by the current economic downturn by extending EI benefits by five weeks. That is more than double the two weeks advocated by the opposition, and it will be a substantial help to Canadians when they need it most.

We have also extended the EI work sharing program. Thankfully, through our efforts over 130,000 Canadian jobs are being protected. That number continues to grow because we have taken action to enhance the program, making it easier for employers to access, cutting the red tape, and making it more responsive. This program is helping Canadians in many sectors of the economy right across our country, providing employment insurance and ensuring jobs are preserved.

We are also investing $1 billion for further skills training through the EI program. This includes $500 million in skills training and upgrading for long-tenured workers and $500 million for training those who do not qualify for EI. These training funds will help Canadians gain new skills so they can succeed in the jobs of the future as our country recovers from the economic downturn and it prospers going forward.

We continue to monitor these measures to ensure they are effective in helping Canadians, and we will do more.

All of that being said, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Liberals' suggestion with respect to EI. I say they have borrowed it from the NDP without the intention of giving it back, which would tell us a thing or two about how irresponsible it really is.

It is irresponsible in the sense that it will not help a single Canadian find a new job or keep his or her job, and it will not help a single Canadian gain any new skills. It will simply add billions to the tax burden of hard-working Canadians and employers at the worst possible time.

The Liberals are having some trouble with this scheme, as one would expect. Last year, their EI critic thought a flat hourly requirement was a bad idea that negatively affected Canadians in areas of high unemployment. Now he has flip-flopped, or at least I think that is what he has done if the Liberals want a standardized number of hours.

In spite of this lack of clarity and this ill-advised and irresponsible idea from the opposition, our government will continue helping Canadians to get through this tough time, and we will be doing it in a responsible manner to ensure it is fair and equitable and covers the needs of all who are experiencing a need at this particular point.

[June 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is quite ironic that the member would get up and speak that way when that party took $50 billion out of the EI fund and used it for general revenue and expenses. We are investing billions of dollars to ensure that the benefits are there. We are investing the amount of dollars that are needed to ensure that claims are processed in a timely manner.

I would like to draw attention to the 45-day work year plan which would do nothing more than raise taxes at a time when it would hurt most businesses and individuals. In fact, the Liberal leader himself said that he would have to raise taxes. There is no doubt about that.

We have taken steps to ensure that benefits are provided, that benefits are extended, that there are no additional taxes for the employers and employees, and that during this difficult time, we are there for them to ensure that the benefits will be received in a timely fashion.

[June 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be here this evening to respond once again to the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

The member ought to take notes, as I have outlined the various steps that our government has taken, both in respect to processing time and to the benefits that have been extended. She should listen to that.

We are taking real action to help those who are vulnerable and unemployed. We will continue to do that. We have made unprecedented investments to help those who, through no fault of their own, as the member said, have suffered from an unexpected job loss during this global economic recession.

Among other things, we have extended the EI benefits by five weeks, more than double the two weeks the opposition has been asking for. It will certainly be a more substantial help to Canadians when they need it the most. We have extended the EI work sharing program. That alone has saved more than 120,000 Canadian jobs by protecting them. The numbers continue to grow. We have taken action to enhance the program, to make it easier for employers to access. We have ensured the red tape has been cut. We will continue to work with Canadian employers to share the costs and keep Canadians working.

We are investing $1 billion for further skills training through the EI program. This includes $500 million in skills training and upgrading for long-tenured workers, and $500 million for training for those who do not even qualify for EI. These training funds will help Canadians gain new skills so they can succeed in the jobs of the future as our country recovers from the economic downturn.

With respect to managing the substantial increase in EI claims, we have invested more than $60 million to help manage and process these claims quickly. We have cut red tape for employers. We have invested additional resources to ensure claims are processed quicker. This is on top of the many other administrative efforts we have taken to ensure that the benefits get to the recipients as quickly as possible. We are monitoring the effectiveness of these measures, and we will continue to do that.

All of that said, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Liberal EI scheme. The scheme proposed by that party will not help a single Canadian find a new job. It will not help a single Canadian keep his or her job. It will not help a single Canadian gain any new skills. No, it will simply add billions of dollars to the tax burden of hard-working Canadians and employers at the worst possible time when the economy is undergoing the stress that it is currently undergoing. Of course, I am talking about the Liberal 360 hour, 45 day work year scheme.

The opposition members can say what they want about this scheme, but the fact is it is an irresponsible proposal that would result in a massive increase in a job-killing payroll tax that will hurt workers and businesses at a time when they can least afford it.

In spite of these irresponsible ideas from the opposition, our government will continue helping Canadians get through this tough time. We are going to do it in a responsible manner. We have invested millions of dollars into skills upgrading and training. We have frozen the EI premiums, injecting about $4.5 billion into the economy. We have extended benefits. Those are the kinds of things that need to be done at this particular time, and we are doing them.

[June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member can wax as eloquently as he wants to, but the fact remains, we have done billions of dollars of enhancements to the EI program, with an additional five weeks, work-sharing programs, and so on.

The Liberal 45-day work idea will not help a single Canadian keep his or her job. It will not help a single Canadian to get a new job. It will not help a single Canadian to get a single new skill. It will only burden Canadians with higher taxes.

What Canadians do not need right now and what employers and employees do not need is higher taxes during this critical time. What they need is a government that cares, a government that ensures they can be trained for the jobs of the future, a government that is prepared to stand behind them during these difficult times, and that is what we are doing.

Here is what the former Liberal government said:

...significantly reducing entrance requirements...is not likely to equate to substantially increased EI coverage, particularly for the long-term unemployed.

That is exactly the point, and the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour made this point on his own in committee some time ago.

[June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we are concerned about Canadians who are losing their jobs, and I am glad that my colleague has raised the EI entrance requirements. He has some explaining to do, because he has quoted a lot of people who disagree with the position he has taken. So I think he owes the House an explanation.

Let us be clear: Our government is absolutely committed to helping Canadians through this crisis, and we will continue to do so through our economic action plan.

The employment insurance program right now is working as it was designed to work by the previous Liberal government at a time when the unemployment rate in Canada was higher than it is today.

Of the 58 EI regions, 41 have easier access to EI than in October 2008. Fully 85% of Canadians have easier access to EI right now, compared to October. The system automatically adjusts. Interestingly, it is working as the previous Liberal government, of which this member was a member, designed it to work. In fact, it is working as my colleague for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour wants it to work, or at least how he wanted it to work last year.

He quoted a lot of people, but let me quote him, himself, in the human resources committee just a year ago. On April 1, 2008, he said the following:

When you reduce to a flat rate of 360 hours, the cost is pretty significant...keep the regional rates. This is to protect those people [in high unemployment areas].

He went on to say:

...it's a real concern that if you get rid of the regional rates of unemployment, and cuts have to be made, it'll be those areas that are hurt disproportionately, and we need to be very concerned about that.

That is his quote. That is contrary to the other quotes he was referring to. He was not in favour of the 45-day work year idea with the fixed benefit, like that proposed by his NDP cousins. He acknowledged the high cost. He said that we should keep the original rates because they help protect Canadians in areas that have historically or chronically high unemployment.

[June 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, obviously we take this issue very seriously. That is why we have invested such significant sums of money to provide extended benefits for longer periods of time. That is why we have invested heavily into skills training and upgrading. That is why we have invested significantly to ensure that those who do not even qualify for EI are able to get assistance. That is why we have invested $60 million to ensure that we can enhance processing and processing times. That is why we have invested the money into resources and people to be sure that we can process those claims quicker, notwithstanding the large volumes of claims and notwithstanding the state of the economy.

We have done some very responsible, constructive things. However, what we will not do is what the opposition proposes, which is to have a 45 day work year that would add dollars to payroll taxes and increase payroll taxes. It is something that businesses and people do not need at this particular time in the economy.

[June 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, let me review what we have done on several points, including timely delivery of benefits. We do take the issue very seriously. Our government is taking real action to help vulnerable and unemployed Canadians through these tough economic times and we will continue to do so.

I would remind my hon. colleague that our government is making unprecedented investments to help those who, through no fault of their own, have suffered from unexpected job loss during this time of global recession. Among other things, we have extended EI benefits by five weeks. That is more than double the two weeks advocated by the opposition and members of her party. Those weeks will help when the help is needed the most.

We have extended the EI work sharing program. Thankfully, through our efforts, more than 120,000 Canadian jobs are being protected. That number continues to grow as we continue to work with Canadian employers to share costs and keep Canadians working as various organizations take steps to adapt to the changing economy.

We have also invested $1 billion for further skills training through the EI program. This includes $500 million in skills training and upgrading for long-tenured workers and $500 million for training for those who do not qualify for EI. With respect to managing the substantial increases in EI claims, we have invested more than $60 million to help manage and process claims quicker while cutting red tape for employers.

We have hired additional staff and added more resources to ensure that the system can cope with the demand that is being made on the system. We are monitoring the effectiveness of these measures to ensure that they are effectively helping Canadians.

That being said, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Liberal 360 hour, 45 day work year scheme. The opposition members can say what they want about this scheme, but the fact is that this is an irresponsible proposal that would result in a massive increase in job-killing payroll taxes that would hurt workers and businesses at a time when they can least afford it.

Do not take it from me. The Liberal member for Kings—Hants said that payroll taxes and EI taxes in particular prevent businesses from hiring people. He also said, “Payroll taxes, especially EI taxes, are a tax on jobs”. He said that on October 16, 1997 in the finance committee, and that is so true.

How the Liberals can claim that this 45 day work year is a good idea now is hard to understand. This irresponsible proposal will certainly not help any Canadians find new jobs or get new skills and that is what is needed. It will not help Canadians who have already suffered a job loss. No, it will simply add billions to the tax burden of hard-working Canadians and employers at the worst possible time.

Let us see what others are saying about this proposal. In the Vancouver Sun on May 26, Harvey Enchin said:

The Liberal option not only seems illogical but it would raise the federal deficit -- and probably taxes -- while doing nothing to address the fact that many of the jobs that have been lost are not coming back.

That is the issue. He went on to say:

The Conservative government is right to reject it.... The federal government is on the right track with investments in skills training and transition programs.

That is what we are doing. In spite of the irresponsible ideas coming from the opposition, our government will continue to help Canadians get through this tough time. We are doing it in a responsible manner. We are going to be sure that benefits are delivered when they ought to be delivered. We are going to ensure that we are using the funding to maximize the returns on those benefits and ensure that people have jobs not only for today but for tomorrow, when they become available and this economy turns.

[Employment Insurance, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the ill-advised, ill-conceived 45-day work year plan the Liberals have would cost billions of dollars. How are they going to raise those billions of dollars except by raising payroll taxes? That is the only way they can do it. They think the deficit is too big. How will they do it? They will have to raise taxes. That is what the leader said before, “We will have to raise taxes”. I would believe him in that regard.

[Employment Insurance, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what we will not do is what the Liberal irresponsible 45-day work year plan would do, which would increase job-killing payroll taxes in order to pay for it. That would hurt workers and kill business.

What we are doing is helping workers by making significant improvements to the employment insurance program, such as increasing the benefits by five weeks, expanding work sharing, freezing EI premiums and spending billions in expert training and skills upgrading.