Jim Karygiannis

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has allowed programs for older workers to sunset, but at the same time, the President of the Treasury Board needlessly slashed $17 million from the workplace skills strategy program as part of his vindictive and ideological $1 billion cut to some of Canada's most vulnerable programs.

In the last Liberal budget in 2005, there was an additional investment of $125 million over the three year program. In contrast, the first Conservative budget laid the groundwork for its destruction.

Workers in Canada will know and will hold the NDP responsible for its actions in 2006.

The member said that the government has blinders on. I am just wondering if the member would not agree with me that the NDP members had blinders on when they voted to take the last Liberal government down. Now all of a sudden they turn around and say that they have seen the light.

If they have seen the light, then they certainly will see the light that the Conservative government is a slash and burn government that does not give a damn about older workers.

[Business of Supply, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what has happened to the existing federal initiatives to help older workers since the minority Conservative government came to power: cuts, delays and inaction. One would think that if the Conservative Party were interested in standing up for Canada's older workers, it would actually recognize the invaluable contribution that older workers make to our country and would have policies that support these beliefs. Similarly, the last election platform of the Conservative Party was silent when it came to older workers.

Let us face the facts. Our population is aging and the number of older workers in this country is increasing. To remain competitive, accommodating measures are and will be required to respond to these emerging needs.

I am sure my colleague would agree with me that the minority Conservative government has paid lip service to the issue of older workers but little else. Its actions suggest that it is not at all committed to developing a truly national older workers strategy. Instead, the government is introducing measures for a limited range of workers in a few selected regions. For the rest of Canada the government seems intent on cutting social programs despite a $13 billion surplus which the Liberals gave it.

Since coming to power, the minority Conservative government has cut several programs aimed at assisting workers. The Conservatives have terminated the $3.5 billion labour market partnership agreements with the provinces, slashed $17 billion from the workplace skills strategy, axed funding for adult literacy programs, and halved funding to the Canadian apparel and textile industries.

The POWA, program for older worker adjustment, was something that was put into place in 1987 by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. It was targeted to help displaced older workers age 54 and over. Workers in Canada will hold the NDP accountable for its actions. They will also realize that Stephen Harper is no friend of working class Canadians--

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, in the last decade we have seen an increase in conflicts and emergencies, both natural and man-made, which have led to the disruption of social, political and economic structures. The Canadian government's record in providing assistance has been mixed. In recent years, Canadians have been asked to respond to numerous crises such as Afghanistan, the Lebanon evacuation and the genocide in Darfur.

The Canadian government dealt with some in a piecemeal manner while others were given significant resources. The government has absolutely no protocol to deal with such emergencies. When will the Conservative government put such a protocol in place? We need to know what our government's response will be in times of crisis.

Finally, is the government willing to send troops to Sudan, yes or no? If not, will the government use our place at the United Nations to put sanctions on Sudan?

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, it is commendable that we are gathered here tonight to discuss what is happening in Sudan, but we should also take into context what is happening in greater Africa and especially the Horn of Africa, be it Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea or Sudan. That part of the world could be a powder keg, which could lead to ramifications down the line five or six years when we will look back and ask ourselves why we did not talk about this. In Somalia right now there is the insurgency of an Islamic movement. Just recently, there was an attack on the president of Somalia that probably could have cost him his life.

One of the things we are failing to discuss is that we are not approaching our communities in Canada, be it the Sudanese Canadian community, the Ethiopian Canadian community, the Eritrean Canadian community or the Somali Canadian community. Through them, we could provide for them a vehicle through CIDA so that they could go back and provide a means of making peace. We are not providing our communities sustainable development to allow them to have capacity building in order to go back and help make peace.

These communities we have in Canada know the language. They are on the ground and ready to get involved. We have asked the government time and time again to do this. I am wondering if the minister will, through his department, look at the means by which we can provide sustainable development for nation building, through our communities, in that part of the world.

[Foreign Affairs, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on April 21, 2004, I was deeply gratified as the Parliament of Canada voted to recognize the Armenian genocide. Today there continues to be human rights violations against the Kurds and the Cypriots in that part of the world.

When will the Prime Minister have the strength of his convictions and have his foreign minister officially recognize the Armenian and Pontian genocides committed by the Ottoman Empire?

[South Asia Earthquake, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from Pakistan and Indonesia, where I witnessed Canadians offering aid to people whose lives have been shattered by nature.

In Pakistan I visited with the men and women of DART. I saw them producing clean, safe drinking water and providing much needed medical aid. They are the face of Canada to the people of Pakistan. These men and women are doing us proud, living and working in conditions that would try the best of us.

In Indonesia, I visited with Canadian Red Cross workers who are helping rebuild lives in Banda Aceh. These men and women are designing new communities that include pipes for water and sewers, roads, homes and places for small shops. They are rebuilding communities, not just structures.

In Banda Aceh, I stayed at Canada House, where Canadians offered an oasis of peace amidst all the destruction. I want to thank Karen Foss and Joyce Loosli for their assistance.

These men and women reflect to the world the best of Canadian values. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

[Parliament, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute young Canadians. As I have over the years, I had the recent pleasure of visiting elementary schools in my riding.

During these visits I discuss the workings of Parliament, the democratic process and the responsibilities of a member of Parliament. Making our parliamentary system come alive is an integral part of these visits.

Following parliamentary procedure, students engage in a mock question period, take on the role of parliamentarians, and ask and respond to questions on issues that matter to them.

As I watch these young Canadians learn about how their country is governed, I know that when it is time for them to become leaders of this country, indeed we will be in good hands.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance program is one of Canada's largest and most visible programs. It matters to Canadians. Everyone wants to ensure that this program is one that Canadians can continue to count on.

Bill C-280 proposes amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and recommends key actions by Parliament.

It calls for the Employment Insurance Commission to explain the rationale for the premium rate and to present that rationale on an annual basis in a report that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development would table in Parliament.

It recommends that the employment insurance account be reconstituted as an independent account under the control of a new tripartite commission.

It also proposes that a new independent EI account begin with a balance equal to the current accumulated surplus that has been credited to the EI account over a period of 10 years through contributions from the consolidated revenue fund.

Having read and considered Bill C-280, I must say that I have strong reservations about the proposed legislation. This bill raises some very important issues.

Budget 2005 responded to many of the points raised in Bill C-280. My concern is whether the proposed amendments will help to improve this program. Canadians expect their government to run programs as efficiently as possible. EI is no exception. The bill would be costly to taxpayers, employees and employers.

The proposed legislation would require the government to contribute a cash amount equivalent to the current accumulated surplus credited to the EI account, in equal amounts, over 10 years, as soon as the bill becomes law. This change would present itself on the Government of Canada's ledger as a new and very substantial fiscal liability.

The existing federal fiscal framework would be affected and would require new money to fund it. An immediate consequence of Bill C-280 would be that the Government of Canada could lose a significant measure of control over the way employment insurance is managed and EI programs are maintained. Many aspects of EI would become the purview of an independent commission, as proposed in the bill, which would raise questions about accountability.

Changes in these areas ultimately limit the government's ability to deliver important benefits to Canadians. This would limit the significant progress that Canada has been making over the past decade.

Let us consider what EI has been able to achieve over the last 10 years.

Canadians called for a better balance of work and family responsibilities. Our government responded through EI by extending maternity and parental benefits for one full year.

We also introduced a new six week compassionate care benefit so that eligible workers can take a temporary leave of absence from work to provide care or support to a gravely ill or dying close relative.

Canadians wanted more support for acquiring skills and experience. We have eliminated multiple waiting periods for apprenticeship training programs.

In addition, the Speech from the Throne contained a commitment to review the EI program and ensure that it remains well suited to the needs of Canada's workforce. To this end, on February 23 of this year the government announced enhancements to the EI program that take into account the many recommendations put forward concerning changes to EI.

To give some examples of the action we are taking, I would like to describe the three new pilot projects announced for areas of high unemployment.

Through these projects, we are testing the labour market impact of: enabling access to EI benefits after 840 hours of work rather than the present 910 when linked with EI employment programs for new or returning entrants to the labour markets; calculating EI benefits based on the best 14 weeks of earnings over the 52 weeks preceding a claim for benefits; and increasing the working while on claim threshold to allow individuals to earn the greater of $75 or 40% of benefits to encourage individuals to take work without a reduction in their benefits.

The enhancements we are putting in place are possible thanks in part to the Government of Canada's ability to ensure that EI's policy and program framework remains responsive to the labour market needs of Canadians.

I am further concerned that Bill C-280 may not be effective in achieving positive changes in the way EI operates.

The legislation calls for the creation of a separate EI account that is not consolidated with the government's budgetary revenues and expenditures.

To do this, careful consideration would be required to change the elements of appropriate comptrollership and financial responsibility that exist, in particular, how they would correlate with measures put in place to respond to concerns expressed by the Auditor General of Canada. Since 1986 the EI account has been consolidated with the accounts of government.

Under our current system, EI program revenues and costs are tracked in the EI account and paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. The accumulated EI surplus is notional and not supported by any other assets--

[Unemployment Insurance Act, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to check the blues tonight because the language that has been used by my colleague across the way, plus previous speakers, certainly has been borderline. I would ask my colleague to refrain from using unparliamentary language.

[Airports, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me just answer the question of how many seats that will cost us: absolutely none.