House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 74% of the vote.
Social Programs April 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. There are strict guidelines and criteria to qualify. It is a program that helps Canadians with disabilities. It is a program that the member and his party voted against when they had the opportunity to support something worthwhile.
Social Programs April 30th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, this funding is for Canadians with disabilities. It was included in budget 2007. The Liberal Party voted against the funding for Canadians in the budget and for those with disabilities. I think they are trying to deflect from the leader saying he is going to raise taxes on all Canadians, including those with disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the member's energy and passion but I would once again question why the member did not support the many initiatives that we have taken over the course of our government.
There is no question that we all share the aim of doing all that we can to help our country's seniors enjoy a better quality of life. We owe a great deal of gratitude to our seniors across the country. We understand that there is always room for improvement. Our government will continue to work to ensure the needs of seniors, including low income seniors, are adequately met.
I am extremely proud of our government's track record in looking out for our seniors. I am disappointed that the Bloc member, including members opposite, voted against the measures that I spoke about earlier and the measures that have been put forward before the House.
We will continue to ensure that the interests of seniors are looked after and protected.
Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand the enthusiasm and passion that the member for Québec has on this issue. What I cannot understand is why the member and members of her party voted against a number of initiatives that we put forward to help seniors in significant ways.
I would like to highlight the government's commitment to all older workers and seniors in Canada. Canada has one of the lowest rates of poverty among seniors in the world, lower than the United States, the United Kingdom and Sweden.
The percentage of low-income seniors in Canada has declined sharply from more than 21% in 1980 to less than 6% in 2006, and those are clearly significant steps of progress. It is good news but, of course, we will not stop working to bring that number down even lower. That is why, since coming to office, this government has been taking action to improve the well-being and quality of life of our seniors.
I remind the House that since taking office our government has increased the guaranteed income supplement, referred to as the GIS, by 7% over and above regular indexation to compensate for increases in the average wage. In fact, the average income for seniors in that time has doubled. We have increased the GIS earning exemption for working seniors from $500 to $3,500. As a result, pensioners eligible for the GIS can now keep up to another $1,500 in benefits. That is a significant amount.
We also passed Bill C-36, legislation that makes it much easier for seniors to apply for and receive their GIS payments. This change allows seniors to make a one-time application for the GIS and receive it year over year as long as they are eligible, provided they file annual tax returns. To help encourage seniors to apply for GIS benefits that they may be entitled to, we sent out application forms to low income seniors identified through the tax system. These efforts alone have helped to put benefits in the hands of more than 328,000 additional seniors.
Canada's economic action plan also clearly underscored our government's commitment to seniors. Among other things in our economic action plan, we invested an additional $60 million over three years in a targeted initiative for older workers and we have expanded the program to include a number of additional eligible communities. The age credit was also increased by $1,000, allowing low and middle income seniors to receive up to an additional $150 in annual tax savings.
Furthermore, we have allocated $400 million over two years through the affordable housing initiative to construct housing units for low income seniors,. However, our support for seniors goes much further. In 2007, our government created a National Seniors Council to advise on issues of concern to seniors. Our creation of the position of Minister of State for Seniors speaks volumes about our determination to promote the interests and protect the well-being of Canadians.
We have instituted a number of projects across with regard to combatting elder abuse in all its forms, physical abuse, financial and emotional abuse. These projects are funded under the new horizons for seniors program, another important federally funded initiative that has funded over 4,200 projects across Canada helping seniors to bring their leadership, energy and skills to benefit our communities.
I have had the opportunity to deliver some of the funding to communities across my constituency and the funds were very well received and put to very good use. It is a great way of respecting our seniors, what they have done for us and our country and how they have built our country through the many years of their hard contributions. We can only pay that back by investing in them.
Liberal Party of Canada April 29th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, while the Liberal leader tours the country selling and promoting his book, our Conservative government has been working hard at managing the Canadian economy.
With our economic action plan, we are reducing the tax burden on Canadian families, we are creating jobs and we are helping Canadians who are hardest hit by the global economic recession.
The Liberals have a plan, too. Recently the Liberal leader said “We will have to raise taxes”. Raising taxes, imposing a job-killing carbon tax, increasing the GST and doing away with the universal child care benefit, that is the Liberal way. Can we imagine the action plan of the Liberals during tough economic times, discouraging economic growth and taxing Canadian families?
Canadians have a right to know this. What taxes are the Liberal Party going to raise? How much is it going to raise them by? Which Canadians are going to be targeted? Who is going to pay?
Employment Insurance Act April 28th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in the discussion of Bill C-279.
Our economic action plan commitments to improve the EI program clearly indicate the employment insurance program is very important to our government. It is important to Canadians.
The bill put forward by the hon. member for Welland proposes that pension benefits, vacation pay and severance payments, collectively called separation payments, not be included in earnings under the Employment Insurance Act and therefore will not reduce benefits under the act. While this government appreciates the sentiment behind the bill, it is important that we look at the central premise of employment insurance and that this debate be put in context.
At the core of the employment insurance program is the insured-based objective that EI benefits are available to those individuals who are facing a loss of employment income. To be consistent with this objective, it naturally follows that, under the EI program, separation payments be considered as income arising from employment, and that is what they are.
The rationale behind the current system is that benefits are not paid simultaneously as, in reality, there is no loss of employment income. Once the time allocated to separation money expires, EI benefits can be collected. People are not losing EI benefits, it is saying they must use up the earnings from employment, or the income, first. When that is used up, then they go on EI. Severance payments are there to replace lost income. It is something that happens by negotiation between employer and employee. It is something that is paid out through legal action. That is meant to replace employment loss and it should be used up.
As things currently stand, the EI program makes provision for workers who receive separation payments to have their benefit periods extended by each week for which separation moneys are paid up to a maximum of 104 weeks. This means that EI claimants are eligible to collect EI benefits over that period of time. EI can continue up to a maximum of 104 weeks.
For example, if claimants qualify for 45 weeks of benefits and receives separation pay that equals 6 months of regular salary, they may receive their benefits provided they are still unemployed, once this initial 6 month period has elapsed. Therefore, claimants use up the six months, then go on EI and they are entitled to the full benefits.
If we use this example, while these individuals may not be able to receive EI benefits for a six month period, they, through their separation pay, already have employment income to live off for six months. Given that these individuals have income to live off for six months, the current system assumes they have not suffered the loss of employment income for this period of employment.
While the obvious effect of the bill would be to remove separation payments from amounts that may be deducted from benefits payable, it is important to note that the full implications of this proposal are difficult to determine.
For example, as the bill proposes to change the definition of earnings throughout the EI Act, it is not clear how the amendment may affect what would be considered to be insurable earnings and how it would affect premiums collected. Premiums have to be paid. As benefits are extended, premiums have to be increased. The ramifications could be quite substantial and would require considerable effort to clarify.
It is therefore difficult to estimate the full cost of implementing the changes proposed in the bill. Looking solely at exempting separation moneys for determination of EI benefits, the cost would be approximately $130 million annually.
Our government is always concerned when Canadians lose their job. We understand the pressures faced by Canadian families during these challenging times. That is why, through our economic action plan, we will help over 400,000 people benefit from an additional five weeks of EI benefits. We will help 190,000 people, including long-tenured and older workers, get retrained to find a new job and put food on the table for their families.
Our government has heard the needs of Canadians and will continue to deliver the protection they need to get through these difficult times. We recognize that during these challenging economic times, more and more people are unfortunately losing their jobs.
People who have lost or are at risk of losing their jobs need to know that their government is working hard for them to get them the assistance they need. That is why, as part of our action plan, we are investing an unprecedented $8.3 billion in Canada skills and training transition. Looking at that, it is a huge amount of dollars. With this strategy, we are making use of employment insurance to bolster benefits and invest in skills training.
Our government remains committed to having a highly skilled, globally competitive workforce. Helping Canadians receive training is essential to meeting this goal. That is why important changes to EI also include supporting long-term training for those workers who have been in the labour force for many years and have not made significant use of EI. For these workers, we are extending EI income support for the duration of training up to two years. These are moneys well spent, positioning people for the time when this economy changes.
I would also like to highlight that in our economic action plan, we committed to allowing earlier access to EI regular income benefits for eligible individuals investing in their own training, using all or part of their separation package. If they use all or part of that, EI would then kick in. Training and skills development are key to helping permanently laid off workers who need to change occupations or sectors, preparing our nation for the jobs of tomorrow.
Our proposal will help unemployed Canadians invest in the training they need for the jobs of the future, while allowing them to receive their EI benefits sooner.
Our government is also assisting laid off workers by providing nationally the advantage of an extra five weeks of EI benefits previously offered as part of a pilot project that was only provided in specific regions with high unemployment. Additionally, the maximum duration of benefits available under the EI program has been increased from 45 weeks to 50 weeks. These changes mean that unemployed Canadians, who otherwise would have exhausted their benefits, will receive financial support for a longer period of time. These new measures became available on March 1.
These are some of the measures that the Government of Canada is taking to temporarily provide additional income support to unemployed workers facing transitions in tough economic times.
Our government has also taken steps to provide assistance to unemployed individuals who are unable to qualify for EI benefits at all. By establishing a new strategic training and transition fund, we are investing $500 million over two years to help these individuals obtain training and other support measures. In the event they do not qualify for EI, this program and fund is available for them. We understand that the provinces and territories know local needs best, so these funds will be delivered through existing labour market agreements.
Our plan also takes into account that, in economic downturns, it would often be older workers who would be most severely affected. To provide them with greater assistance, we are investing an additional $60 million over three years in the targeted initiative for older workers program. We are also expanding its reach so communities with a population fewer than 250,000 will now be eligible for funding. It makes no difference if these communities are located in larger metropolitan areas. They are still eligible. Our plan provides additional support to unemployed Canadians over the short term and is designed to meet the needs of the current economy while helping Canadians get the skills they need for the jobs of tomorrow.
We believe that while the intent of this legislation is laudable, the wording of it is unclear. If passed, it could have considerable impacts on the fiscal framework and significant implications on other aspects of the EI program that are unclear at this time.
As I mentioned earlier, our government is already proposing a measure that will allow earlier access to EI benefits if individuals use some or all of their separation payments to purchase skills upgrading or training for themselves.
These initiatives, when taken as a package, are meant to address the needs of Canadians. It is unfortunate that the member and members of his party oppose each and every one of these proposals, such as extending the EI program by five weeks. It matters very much to those Canadians who are still looking for a job and have not found one. That five weeks is very significant. It matters to those who want to job share to ensure that all of them have an opportunity to work, while the economy recovers. There are 190,000 people who want to get their skills upgraded and want to have training so they are prepared to enter the job market of the future.
That party has opposed and voted against very important measures. In fact, it said that it was going to vote against them before it had an opportunity to read and understand what these measures were. One has to look at this whole picture as a package.
Employment Insurance Act April 28th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to what the member has said. Some of what he has said makes good sense.
However, there was a provision for improvements to the EI system, which we put before the House for a vote. It included a five week extension that would help approximately 400,000 people, a work-sharing agreement that would help approximately 80,000 people and skills upgrading and training that would assist about 190,000 people. That was about a $4.5 billion stimulus injection through improvements to the system and the member's party voted against each and every one of those proposals.
How can the member justify that at this time in the economy? Why would he not have supported those absolutely positive initiatives to help a good number of people?
Automotive Industry April 27th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, we have made a number of improvements and extensions to the EI system that has been in place with the previous Liberal government for a number of years. The member voted against each and every one of those, even before he read what was in the budget.
There has been an extension of EI benefits by five weeks, a work-sharing program to ensure people can continue to work and not get laid off, and excessive funds put into worker training, retraining and skills upgrading. The member voted against each and every one of those provisions.
Employment Insurance April 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, we are always concerned, of course, when anyone loses his or her job or gets laid off. We certainly have taken steps to expand the program in a variety of areas.
With respect to those who come back to jobs that are expected to be there, if they are not there, the individuals are entitled to file an unjust dismissal complaint under the labour program or with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
That said, we have added millions of dollars to the program, but one thing we will not do is raise taxes like the other party has promised to do in many of the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition.
Employment Insurance April 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the EI program as we now know it and as it existed under the previous Liberal government existed with respect to the benefits in the same fashion when the unemployment rate was higher.
That said, there is no question that if anyone is laid off or fired during maternity benefits, the individual is entitled to continue those benefits until those are completed.
If the individual comes back to work and has been laid off or the work is not there, the individual can certainly file a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the labour program. There are provisions that the individual can use, because if anyone is doing anything that is not proper, that needs to be addressed.