Ed Komarnicki

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this government does get it. That is why we spent $1 billion on skills upgrading and training. That is why we have added benefits across the line.

However, let us quote what Harvey Enchin from The Vancouver Sun had to say about the Liberal plan. He said, “The Liberal option not only seems to be illogical but it would raise the federal deficit—and probably taxes—while doing nothing to address the fact that many jobs that have been lost are not coming back. The Conservative government is on the right track to reject it. The federal government is on the right track with investment in skills training and transition payments”.

That is what we are doing. That is what Canadians want.

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting to have that coming from the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, when in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development on April 1, 2008, he had this to say on regional rates when the benefits go up and the period lessens when the unemployment rates go up: “It is my view that if you get rid of the regional rates and there are changes forced on the EI system because of the economic circumstances, those in high unemployment regions will be hurt disproportionately”.

He favours the regional rates and now he is talking against them. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth, “Don't increase the deficit; spend more”.

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, one word describes it: hypocritical. On the one hand, the members do not want the deficit to go up; on the other hand, they want to spend billions of dollars. They have taken a 360 hour, 45 day work year, from the NDP and borrowed it without the intention of giving it back.

Here is what Don Martin of the Calgary Herald had to say about that plan, “Just 360 hours to qualify for a benefit period payment just shy of a year. Come on, that's a bit rich even for the Liberals. There are many better ways to reform the system, starting with the Conservatives' $500 million to stretch benefits for long-term workers”.

That is the way to go, to enhance the benefits, just like we are doing for Canadian workers.

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what is unconscionable is when that party cut $25 billion from the Canada social transfer to balance the budget.

We have not done that. We have added billions of dollars to improve skills upgrading and training, to extend EI by five weeks to help 400,000 people, to ensure work-sharing is easier to get for others and ensuring that will help employers and employees alike. That is what we have done.

We are looking after the most vulnerable and those who are hurting at this time.

[The Economy, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to that.

Canadians see evidence of good, sound fiscal management by this Conservative government during these tough economic times.

The International Monetary Fund said, with respect to the stimulus package, that it is timely, appropriately sized, diversified, and well structured. And it said that it protects the vulnerable. That is exactly the point.

Compare this to the Liberals: no plan, no focus, nothing to add that would help the economy. All the while they are dreaming and scheming on getting into office and back to the good old days of the tax-and-spend ways at the expense of ordinary hard-working Canadians.

The Liberal leader attacks the deficit while, at the same time, demanding billions of dollars in new spending; a totally hypocritical position. He says we need to reform EI by introducing a 45 day work year, costing billions.

How will he pay for this? The Liberal leader himself has tipped us off. He says he will have to raise taxes.

Either he will raise taxes or he will have to add a job-killing payroll tax.

The truth is out. Both are bad for our economy.

[May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, over 80% of those who pay into EI do qualify. There is a monetary program for those who do not qualify. Regardless of what the member may say, the fact is that we are making unprecedented investments to help vulnerable and unemployed Canadians.

We are investing $8.3 billion in the Canada skills and transition strategy to help Canadians recover from this downturn and to better position themselves after this economic downturn for the prosperity and opportunities that lie ahead. The Liberal plan is to adopt irresponsible NDP proposals to change EI. They are proposals that will do absolutely nothing to help Canadians acquire new skills so that they can get the jobs of the future.

The only thing the Liberal plan will do is add billions more to the tax burden facing hard-working Canadians at a time when they can least afford it. Higher taxes are the last thing Canadians need when they are trying to get through these tough economic times. That approach is simply irresponsible and it will not be supported by this government.

[May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the concerns raised by the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. Of course, our government is concerned by the job losses being experienced by Canadians. As I said earlier this week, our government is absolutely committed to helping Canadians through this crisis and we will continue to do so.

Our government is making unprecedented investments to help vulnerable and unemployed Canadians. Among other things, we have extended EI benefits by five weeks, more than double the two weeks advocated for by the opposition. We have extended the work-sharing program. More than 110,000 Canadian jobs are being protected by working with Canadian employers to share costs and avoid layoffs.

We are investing $500 million in skills training and upgrading for long-tenured workers, $1 billion in further training through the EI program, and $500 million in training for those who do not qualify for EI. We have made changes that will process claims faster and cut red tape for employers. To do so, we have invested more than $60 million for processing, including hiring additional staff to manage workload and implement budget measures.

We are also monitoring the effectiveness of these measures to ensure that they are effectively helping Canadians. However, what we will not do is implement the Liberal 360 hour, 45 day work year idea. The opposition members can say what they want about this scheme, but the fact is that this irresponsible proposal would result in a massive increase in job-killing payroll taxes that will hurt workers and businesses alike at a time when they can least afford it. This irresponsible proposal certainly will not help Canadians find new jobs or get new skills. It will simply add billions to the tax burden on Canadians.

Let us see what others are saying about this irresponsible Liberal plan. 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. The Conservative government is right to reject it...The federal government is on the right track with investment in skills training and transition programs.

In the Calgary Herald, on May 26, Don Martin said:

But just 360 hours to qualify? For a benefit payment period that's just shy of a year? Come on, that's a bit rich, even for Liberals...Yet there are many better ways to reform the system, starting with the Conservatives' re-announced $500-million to stretch benefits for long-term workers--

Unlike the opposition's hollow rhetoric and irresponsible plans, our government's economic action plan is helping Canadians get new skills for new jobs. It is helping Canadians through these tough economic times. Unlike the opposition, on this side of the House, we will not force all working Canadians and businesses to pay more taxes for this irresponsible and ill-conceived proposal.

Our government is helping and will continue to help Canadians get the training they need for the jobs of tomorrow. We will continue to help preserve jobs so that hard-working Canadians can continue to pay their mortgages and provide for the needs of their families.

[May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are, according to a Statistics Canada report, released on May 25, farm cash receipts for hog producers have increased to over 27% in the first quarter of 2009 from the first quarter 2008. Lower feed, fuel and interest costs are improving the bottom line for hog producers.

The Government of Canada is working with the sector to address issues of increased global competition. Through the Canadian Agriculture and Food International Program, the Government of Canada has contributed $2 million annually to Canada Pork International to support the implementation of the sector's export market development plan.

Markets are being opened up, and that is where we should be proceeding. Dollars are being spent to ensure that a future is there for the hog producers. However, having a trade action is not something we want to encounter in a negative way.

[May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to restate some facts to deal with the issues the member has raised.

There is no question the Government of Canada is committed to supporting the Canadian hog and pork industry as it continues to face challenges with respect to its competitiveness.

Industry stakeholders understand that competitiveness is key to the survival of the Canadian hog and pork industry. In response, the industry, provinces and the Government of Canada are taking the necessary steps to the adapt to the new market realities at home and abroad. We are finding new marketing opportunities around the world to help Canadian farmers weather the storm and to strengthen export markets.

The Minister of Agriculture continues to promote our safe, top-quality pork to the many countries around the world. At the Canada-United States border, our Conservative government continues to defend the interests of the hog sector by launching a WTO consultation regarding the country of origin labelling. That was commenced in April.

Let me address the one point raised by the member opposite regarding a per head payment.

Let me be clear. Per head payments run a high risk of trade retaliation, not only against the hog industry, but against all other livestock and agricultural sectors. Is that what the member wants? Additionally it would be very counterproductive to our current COOL challenge.

Instead of such a counterproductive way forward, let me tell members what we are doing for hog farmers. At home, we are offering more support than ever for hog farmers. Last spring, we offered emergency cash advances to livestock producers. Now we are giving producers an additional 12 to 18 months to repay their advances. The first $100,000 of each producer's advance will also continue to be interest-free. It is estimated that only 44% of all hog producers in Canada have participated in the advance payment program for the 2008-09 production year. More than $450 million in advances are eligible for the stay of default.

Given the recent challenges in the hog industry, significant payments are being made under the business risk management programs, covering between 60% to 70% of the losses of producers.

These are the facts.

In 2007, $235 million went to hog producers through agri-invest, $20.8 million, kickstart, $60 million, and agristability, $254 million. Approximately 84% of hog farmers participated in agristability in 2007. Those are significant figures. In 2008, an estimated $213 million went to hog producers through agri-invest, $18 million, and agristability, $195.4 million. In 2009, an estimated $182 million has gone to hog producers through agri-invest, $19.6 million, and agristability, $162.9 million.

Eligible producers who submitted 2007 agri-invest applications have access to their benefits and they can now apply for the 2008 agri-invest program.

Further, the Government of Canada is working closely with the National Pork Value Chain Roundtable to develop and implement a strategy that addresses the competitiveness issues facing the industry and to succeed in the future. In support of this strategy, the Government of Canada is responding to industry priorities, including market access, market development, innovation and animal health.

To give Canadian livestock producers even greater access to global markets, the minister has concluded several successful trade missions to Asia, South America and the Middle East. These market access initiatives are reinforced with significant market development funding directed to the hog and pork industry and have been further supported through the introduction of the Canada brand promise for export trade.

I see my time is up.

[The Economy, May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have invested a significant number of dollars to help those who qualify for EI and those who do not qualify for EI by investing half a billion dollars in training for long-tenured workers, helping 40,000 Canadians, and $1.5 billion in training for those on EI and those who do not qualify.

We have done a significant amount of work to ensure that those who do not have jobs can prepare for the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow.