House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
40th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 079
CONTENTS
Friday, June 19, 2009
CANADA
House of Commons Debates
|
l |
|
l |
|
l |
|
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Friday, June 19, 2009
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Business of Supply]
[English]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion--Business of the House
| That this House recognizes that its constitutional role of holding the government to account requires regular, orderly, timely and clearly understood procedural opportunities for doing so, while not unduly restricting the ability of the government to manage its legislative program; and therefore orders that section 10 of Standing Order 81 be amended temporarily for the balance of 2009 by adding, immediately after paragraph (c) thereof, the following: |
| “(d) In each of the supply periods described in paragraph (a), the first allotted day shall be no earlier than the ninth sitting day and no later than the thirteenth sitting day in that period; and no fewer than four nor more than seven sitting days shall be permitted to pass between allotted days within each period, provided that, in any case, the last allotted day in each period shall not be more than seven sitting days before the last sitting day in that period.” |
| provided that the Speaker shall, after consultation with the House Leaders, table in the House no later than December 1, 2009, a proposed formula for a fair and even distribution of allotted days in each of the supply periods of 2010; |
| and, with particular regard to proceedings in 2009 only, when the House adjourns on Friday, June 19th, 2009, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 14th, and, in order to avoid conflicts with G-20 meetings, when the House adjourns on Friday, September 18th, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 28th, provided that, for the purpose of granting Royal Assent to any bills, the House shall, during the aforementioned adjournment periods, be deemed to stand adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28, and provided that the supply period ending December 10th, 2009 shall be deemed to commence on September 14th; |
| and, in addition to the accountability reports already required by the Liberal amendment to the 2009 Budget motion, the government shall prepare a further accountability report, meeting all the requirements of that said Liberal amendment, and table it in the House during the week beginning September 28th, 2009, and an allotted day for the Official Opposition shall be designated to take place on the third sitting day following the tabling of the report, provided that for the purposes of Standing Order 81(10)(d) above, this allotted day be deemed the first allotted day in the supply period ending December 10th, 2009. |
Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, 2009, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker, a number of serious issues have come to the floor of this House since the sitting of Parliament, which apparently will end today, first began with the 2009 federal budget in January.
Four of the most important of those issues, the ones that have dominated Canadians' attention for the past several weeks, are: first, the unfairnesses in the employment insurance system, especially, current eligibility rules, during a time of deepening recess; second, the progress, or the lack of progress, in getting infrastructure investments actually out the door and up and running; third, the exploding federal deficit, with no clear plan yet apparent to deal with it; and, fourth, the recent failure in Canada's ability to produce medical isotopes, causing a worldwide crisis in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, heart disease and many other serious health conditions.
These were the four issues that were specifically raised by the Leader of the Opposition# this past Monday as matters requiring explicit attention this week from the Government of Canada before Parliament could allow the government's estimates to be approved today.
With respect to employment insurance, there are two key problems that had to be addressed. One was fairness to the unemployed and regional equity across the country at a time when Canadians are facing a worsening economy. We are not living in the 1990s when Canada was coming out of a recession, when the economy began generating 3.5 million net new jobs, and Canadians enjoyed the start of the most protracted growth spurt since World War II.
The circumstances of 2008-09, sadly, are the opposite, and the old rules are, unfairly, leaving too many Canadians out.
That point about fairness was made not only by us in the official opposition but also by Premiers McGuinty of Ontario, Campbell of British Columbia, Stelmach of Alberta and Wall of Saskatchewan, as well as, incidentally, the Conservative Party in Ontario, including the spouse of the federal Minister of Finance.
With respect to effectiveness and affordability, without any premium increases, I would hasten to add, independent think tanks like the Conference Board of Canada, the Toronto Dominion Bank, the C.D. Howe Institute and others, agreed with the principle that were we arguing for. If we provide better access to EI benefits for the unemployed during a recession, we will increase their disposable incomes and, therefore, their purchasing power, and all of those benefits will be pumped right back into the economy almost immediately as those jobless Canadians buy the necessities of life for their families. Those benefits, therefore, become not a cost but an immediate form of economic stimulus; perhaps more effective than anything else that the government has announced.
Until Monday of this week, the government denied all of this about employment insurance. It claimed that it had already fixed the system and there was really nothing left to do. However, now, as of this week, that view has changed. The government now agrees there is an EI eligibility problem. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the current rules in a recession “don't make a lot of sense”, to use his own words.
So, we now have a process to at least try to fix that problem, as well as, perhaps, some others related to employment insurance. That is progress. That is better than where the problem stood on Monday.
With respect to infrastructure programs to get shovels in the ground and jobs created in this construction season, the problem has been that there have been a lot of announcements and re-announcements of many projects over and over again, but so far, nearly a third of the way through the current construction season, very few tangible results have actually been obtained. It has been a lot of sizzle but very little steak. Big hat, no cattle. And that view has been shared emphatically by many mayors in municipalities across the country who have been waiting for some action.
The Minister of Finance said in his budget in January that the first 120 days following his budget would be the most critical in getting stimulus flowing this summer, but those 120 days passed three weeks ago, at a time when the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was reporting a 96% shortfall in the government's actual delivery on what it had promised.
All of the PR campaigns aside, Canadians need to know what money was actually spent, not promised, not announced, not allocated, not advertised but actually spent on which projects, creating how many real jobs in those first 120 days. We now have a way to find that out faster than would otherwise have been the case.
With respect to the deficit, we know this. The government has been erratic and inaccurate in providing any reliable information. Last fall the government was telling Canadians that a recession was unlikely and that there would be emphatically no deficit. In November, it claimed four more surplus budgets. In January, that had flipped around completely to a projection of two years of deficits, $34 billion this year and $30 billion next year. In February, March and April it told us that was still completely accurate information. It was still “on track”, it said.
However, in May we learned the red ink for this year will not be $34 billion but $50 billion, a 48% increase. Deficits will follow not for two years but for at least five years and the cumulative damage will be something worse than $170 billion in new debt.
Worse still, Conservative deficit financing began not because of but before there was a recession. It destroyed Canada's fiscal security during good times long before the trouble hit with a vengeance last fall. There is to date little evidence that the spending that has been announced is having any constructive effect and there is no apparent plan, other than wishful thinking, to deal with the new mortgage that is being placed on the future of our children.
Because of the events of this week, the government will be obliged to be more forthcoming with Canadians about the actual debt and deficit situation and the government's plan to deal with it. It will also be required to produce and implement a plan to deal with the crisis in medical isotopes. Confusing snippets of information will not suffice. Neither will it be sufficient to try to pass the buck.
The government must shoulder the responsibility that comes from being in power for more than three and a half years. It inherited nuclear facilities that were in fact duly licensed. It, itself, renewed those licences.
There was no unplanned disruption in the flow of isotopes during the previous years of Liberal government. Neither was there any disruption during the Mulroney years before that, as far as anyone can remember. However, there have been two serious failures in the last 18 months.
It is time to stop the spin, stop the excuses and just produce a plan to tell worried Canadians how this crisis is going to be fixed going forward. That is what matters. That is what patients waiting for cancer treatments want to know. On Monday, the Prime Minister finally said he would comply and produce that plan.
Those are the four key issues. The vehicle for achieving some progress on them is the motion that we are considering this morning. If this motion is adopted, the estimates will pass, the House will adjourn today for the normal summer period, we will return one week earlier in September, and our sittings will avoid any direct conflict with the G20.
The government will prepare an extra probationary report on the economy, the fiscal situation and the fight against the recession. The report will provide details about infrastructure spending and the deficit, among other things. It will coincide with the advice that will be coming from a working group of MPs and others on how to fix EI eligibility. Shortly thereafter, there will be a vote scheduled in the House to test the government's performance and further opposition days for all parties will be scheduled in an even-handed manner through the fall and into December.
There is some progress on the four important issues and there is enhanced accountability in a minority Parliament. For these reasons, this motion should be passed today.
We have heard many things from the member for Wascana in relation to the four main points the leader of the official opposition had leading up to the meetings between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. However, the official opposition House leader, the member for Wascana, fails to mention that basically none of the four points the official opposition leader felt were paramount to be answered prior to his decision on whether to force a spring election were really dealt with.
The resolve that the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition had at the end of their meetings, while very encouraging and beneficial to all Canadians since they resulted in no election call, did not really address the points that the leader of the official opposition had going into those meetings.
I will give one clear example. For weeks and weeks we heard the Leader of the Opposition and many members of his party say that the main reform to EI must be a threshold of 360 hours across the country. There was no mention of that. There was no agreement to that when the agreement was finally reached between the two leaders.
I would ask the official opposition House leader why he did a 180 on the 360? If that was the hill the Liberals were going to die on, why was this not agreed upon, or even raised, in the meeting between the leader of the official opposition and the Prime Minister?
Mr. Speaker, obviously I was not in the meeting, and neither was the hon. gentleman across the way, so perhaps we should both be a bit careful about saying what was or was not discussed in that meeting. The fact is that the topic of eligibility for unemployment insurance was expressly a part of the discussion. Both of the leaders have said that. They both agreed on a process by which to address that issue.
It is significant that before that meeting the government denied that there was any problem with eligibility for employment insurance. It said that apart from its last election campaign promise, which had to do with parental leave for the self-employed, everything else had been addressed by what the government had done with respect to the five weeks of additional benefits and that there was no point even discussing EI eligibility.
As it turns out, in his news conference following the meeting with the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said he agreed there were inequities in the rules with respect to eligibility and that he was prepared to make a good faith effort to try to address those with the Leader of the Opposition. Let us hope the process works, because that would be beneficial for unemployed people in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by the debate this morning, particularly the exchange between the Conservative member and the member for Wascana. There seems to be the first crack in this new coalition government. I think Canadians will watch what unfolds with great interest.
The question I want to ask this morning is also about EI. It pertains to the so-called blue ribbon panel. I thought this might be interesting, that there might be representatives from the CLC appointed to this panel, that there may be experts on the worker and employer sides who deal with employment insurance every single day.
What do we get? We get a panel of Liberals and Conservatives, two MPs from each party and a political staffer. I am not sure why that is necessary, because frankly all the MPs in this House have already voted on EI.
We already know what this House has decided should happen on EI. The NDP motion on EI passed by a majority vote. Canadians are simply waiting for its implementation. They do not need more study. One and half million Canadians are unemployed. They need action, not more study.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that the discussions this week have actually broken the logjam and a process is now in place that can lead to better results for unemployed Canadians across the country.
I am encouraged by the remarks of the representative of the NDP, because it sounds like she would like to participate in the process. Hopefully there is a broad consensus across the country that can be arrived at.
In terms of this working group, it will be able to reach out beyond its membership to receive good advice from wherever that may come.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the opposition day motion moved by the hon. member for Wascana, the Liberal House leader.
The motion recognizes the role of the House in ensuring government accountability. As we know, that is the primary function of Parliament in our Westminster system.
More specifically, the motion at hand calls for three things: first, that the Standing Orders of the House be changed with respect to the scheduling of allotted days this fall; second, that the House calendar be altered to accommodate the G20 meetings in September; and third, that the government table an additional report on the implementation of the 2009 budget.
I will touch on these three points very briefly, as it is the government's intention to support the motion. I will devote the remainder of my remarks to a more general discourse on the successful functioning of Parliament and my experiences of this past session.
The opposition day motion provides for a change to the rules of Parliament with regard to how the government may allocate opposition days this fall. Since coming to office in 2006, as a general rule our government has always tried to evenly distribute the opposition days in the parliamentary calendar. In certain circumstances we recognize that legislative priorities can force a deviation from this practice. However, we do support the idea of amending the Standing Orders to ensure that this usual practice becomes a rule.
The second provision of today's opposition day motion provides for a change to the House calendar for the fall of 2009. Under this provision the House would open a week earlier than currently scheduled and it would then adjourn for the week of September 21. This will enable the government to focus on the G20 meetings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on September 24 and 25.
The G20 is the chief forum for the world leaders, as a group, to address issues resulting from the global economic crisis, and Canada has played an active and important role in these discussions. At the fall G20 meetings, the Prime Minister and other world leaders will discuss progress in promoting economic recovery and they will consider new ways to address global economic and financial challenges.
I think we can all agree that there is no more pressing issue before Parliament than dealing with the global economic downturn, which has caused personal hardship and job loss around the world. Unfortunately, as we all know, Canada has not been immune.
Our legislative program of this past session has reflected that the economy is the number one issue for Canadians. As such, I am pleased to support a motion that permits the Government of Canada to give its undivided attention to the critical economic discussions that will be taking place at the G20 summit in September.
The third provision of today's opposition motion requests that the government table an additional report on the implementation of the 2009 budget. In the face of global economic uncertainty, this government presented a budget in January with a comprehensive economic action plan to stimulate economic growth, restore confidence and support Canadians and their families during this global recession.
This economic recovery program is unprecedented in our history, and it is working. Canada was the last group of seven country to enter recession and the International Monetary Fund expects that we will have the strongest recovery coming out of it.
The government has also taken unprecedented steps in reporting on our economic action plan. We tabled an initial budget report in March. A week ago we tabled a second budget report, which outlines how 80% of the measures in our economic action plan are already being implemented. This government welcomes the opportunity provided by today's opposition day motion to table a third budget report in September. In fact, we committed to such a report in our budget presentation earlier this past winter.
The Minister of Finance announced at the time that he would be tabling an economic report in the fall. This being the case, I commend the official opposition for echoing the government's pre-existing intention and commitment to provide quarterly reports on the economy in and through the House to all Canadians. As we debate this today, I think it is important to remember that the government was already committed to providing that report in September.
As all members in the House know, the last few weeks have not been easy in this place. In fact they have not been easy on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. During this time of economic challenge, Canadians did not want to hear about the possibility of an election. Canadians want us to continue to work to achieve results for them. They know we cannot afford an election, which would put Canada's economic recovery at risk, halt stimulus investment across the country and limit our ability to continue to implement our economic action plan for Canadians.
By avoiding an election, we have enabled the government to continue its course of doing everything possible to turn this global recession around on our own soil. The cooperation we have seen emerge over this week, spearheaded by our Prime Minister, has not only avoided a costly and unwanted election but has clearly demonstrated to Canadians that their Parliament can work for them.
Despite the partisan political drama played out during the daily 45 minutes of question period, Canadians may be surprised to know just how cooperative and productive this past session of Parliament has been. Since January, our government has worked with all opposition parties to advance many important bills that will help Canadian families. We have moved forward on our electoral commitments, and I am pleased that much more has been done.
Since January, the government has introduced a total of 54 bills. By the time the Senate adjourns for the summer next week, I expect we will have royal assent on 26 of those bills, including such important legislative initiatives as Bill C-33, which will restore war veterans' allowances to allied veterans and their families; Bill C-29, to guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and co-operatives; Bill C-3, to promote the economic development of Canada's north; Bill C-28, to increase the governance capacity of first nations in Canada; and Bill C-14, a critically important justice bill to fight the scourge of organized crime.
Although much work has been accomplished, a good number of bills that continue to be priorities of our government remain on the order paper, including Bill C-6, to enact Canada's consumer product safety act to help protect the health and safety of all Canadians; Bill C-8, to provide first nations women on reserve with the same rights and protections enjoyed by all other Canadians; and Bill C-23, to open new doors for trade between Canada and Colombia.
Furthermore, our government has continued to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to fighting crime and violence in this country. Our justice minister, the hon. member for Niagara Falls, has been unrelenting in his determination to hold criminals accountable and protect victims and law-abiding Canadian citizens.
Over a dozen justice related bills have been introduced since the beginning of this parliamentary session, which include Bill C-15, Bill C-26 and Bill S-4, to help fight crimes related to criminal organizations, such as drug-related offences, identity theft and auto theft; Bill C-25, which will return truth in sentencing and eliminate the two for one credit; Bill C-36, which will repeal the faint hope clause, and Bill C-19, the new anti-terrorism bill.
Unfortunately none of these bills have completed the legislative process during this session of Parliament. Again, due to the leadership of our Prime Minister, thankfully our country will not be plunged into an election and these bills will remain on the order paper. We hope to pass them into law in the fall.
I look forward to continuing the spirit of cooperation in this place in September to accomplish this unfinished business for all Canadians. Five of these bills have already passed one chamber of Parliament and they are before the second House for consideration. On behalf of vulnerable Canadians in particular, we have to keep moving to get the job done on this important legislation.
In closing, I am pleased that the government has been able to develop today's opposition day motion in cooperation with the official opposition. This House of Commons should more often focus on what all of us have in common rather than what divides us. While I would have liked to have seen some debate on some of our newer bills that we have just introduced and passed more of our justice and safety bills, this parliamentary sitting is winding down in the age-old Canadian tradition of compromise.
We all know that this place is about debate, trade-offs, negotiations and compromise. This is how Parliament works. This is how our very country was born, has grown and continues to develop and flourish.
As I have already indicated, the government will be supporting today's motion. I again salute our Prime Minister for his leadership in staving off an election, which I think would be dreaded by the vast majority of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I wish you, and all colleagues in this House, a very happy summer.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech. It was certainly more statesmanlike than the deputy House leader for the government's was.
I want to ask him specifically about EI and the issue of regional fairness.
It is not just the opposition parties in this House who say we need to have regional fairness and a 360-hour standard, but that is the overwhelming feeling of business, labour, social policy groups, analysts and anti-poverty advocates. There are people who would argue whether it should be 360, 395 or 420 hours, but even his own premier in B.C., as well as Premier Stelmach, Premier Doer and others have said we need to have regional fairness.
I ask my hon. colleague, very seriously, does he not think that the people of his constituency should have the same access to EI as any other Canadian?
Mr. Speaker, despite my hon. colleague's preamble and sharp partisan jab against my hon. parliamentary secretary, who spoke so eloquently a few moments ago in reply to the address by the member for Wascana, I will address his question.
Something that has been overlooked thus far in the debate, certainly in the remarks by the member for Wascana, is the fact that our Prime Minister, our Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and our entire government have always maintained that we are prepared to do more. We are prepared to do whatever is necessary to address the economic challenges, the hardships that Canadian families are facing during this global economic recession.
In answer to the hon. member's question, I commend his leader, the leader of the official opposition, and my Prime Minister for working together co-operatively in striking the working group that will be investigating options over the summer to make the employment insurance program fairer for all.
The Prime Minister has put forward the idea of including self-employed people, on an optional basis, in employment insurance. We have extended benefits. We have already made substantive changes about which we have often remarked.
I must also be very clear. The statement made by my parliamentary secretary is accurate to the word. The official opposition and its leader did a dramatic 180° turn on their 360. That no longer is the hill on which they are dying.
I commend the official opposition for seeing reason and working with our Prime Minister to put forward the working group on employment insurance reform.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the House leader is about one particular part of the opposition day motion before us today, and I will talk a bit more about it later when I get the opportunity to participate in the debate.
My question focuses around the need to adjourn the House during the meeting of the G20. As I understand it, traditionally the Prime Minister and usually the Minister of Foreign Affairs would participate in those meetings. That is two people out of a House of 308 members. I also understand that the government might want to take more people along, but I am assume it would not be more than about half a dozen. That would leave more than 300 people here ready to do the business of the nation.
Could the government House leader explain to me why it is necessary to adjourn the entire House of Commons for one whole week when we are facing an unemployment crisis, a crisis with respect to isotopes and a crisis with respect to job creation? Could it be because the Little Mermaid is opening in New York theatres that week and he wants all of his members to be able to go?
Mr. Speaker, as I remarked in my speech, the New Democratic Party is always so negative all the time, and it is very unfortunate. Canadians are tired of that. It is reflected in the rapidly diminishing support for the New Democratic Party in the polls from coast to coast to coast. That party is falling into disrepute because of its actions. Those members are always negative. They vote against every solitary thing that we bring forward on behalf of Canadians. They have to vote against something before they even read it, and they brag about it.
Canadians do not support parliamentarians of any political stripe who come here to automatically oppose everything that is trying to be done.
On the issue of adjournment, I would point out for the hon. member, the media and Canadians watching at home, that not a single solitary day of debate is going to be lost by having the House rise. The G20 meeting is an urgent and important meeting. Our Prime Minister has been a world leader on the international stage in addressing the financial crisis facing the world, not just in Canada. He will continue to do that at the G20.
We will continue to have the debate in this chamber, which the country needs, despite the negativity of the NDP.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate on the motion introduced by the Liberals on this last supply day of the session.
I am happy to speak because I truly feel as though I am doing the job Quebeckers have asked us to do by sending a majority of Bloc Québécois members to this house since 1993. This work involves defending the interests of Quebeckers and of workers.
In the spirit of defending the interests of the workers of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the motion introduced by the Liberal-Conservative coalition. Let us not kid ourselves; the motion before us is the result of the deals that took place over the past few days and weeks between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. They simply want to ensure that the Conservative government's so-called economic action plan moves forward, and all the Liberals and the Leader of the Opposition got in return was a vague promise of EI reform and the creation of a working group, which we think is a sham. I will come back to this.
Voting in favour of this motion would mean voting in favour of this new Liberal-Conservative coalition, and would mean voting in favour of the budget that the Bloc Québécois has already voted against because it did not address the current needs of workers and the unemployed, the needs of the sectors that are currently struggling—like the forestry and manufacturing sectors—or the needs of Quebec.
Since we voted against the budget because it was not friendly to workers, Quebeckers or the unemployed, we will certainly not vote in favour of the motion being discussed today. We will not endorse the partisan manoeuvring that has been taking place over the past few hours and days. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this motion.
If the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister had been responsible and had chosen to assist the people and to immediately respond to the needs of the unemployed, instead of trying to buy more time, we could have justified supporting this motion. However, this is absolutely not the case.
Not only did we yet again denounce the Conservative so-called economic action plan because it does not meet the needs of the people and the sectors that are suffering because of the financial crisis and the economic crisis, but we have also proposed comprehensive plans twice in the past few months, plans that included a series of proposals to meet the current needs of the economy and the population. Each time, the government and the Prime Minister dismissed our proposals out of hand without even finding out what they were.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the Bloc Québécois always makes up its mind to vote against everything without even reading it. That is not at all true. I think it is important to note that, since the Bloc Québécois first arrived here in 1993, every time any bill or motion whatsoever was introduced, we considered whether it would be good for Quebec, good for people, good for workers and good for the unemployed. We did not hesitate to vote for any bill or motion that we found to be good, regardless of whether it came from the government or another opposition party.
I would note that yesterday, the Prime Minister misled the House about that. For example, we voted in favour of the Conservative government's first two budgets because we felt that they included enough transfers to Quebec to justify them even though they did not resolve the fiscal imbalance. I want to make that very clear.
What the Prime Minister said yesterday is not at all what the Bloc Québécois has done over the years. The Prime Minister, however, has shown no interest in any suggestions from the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party, or the other half of the Liberal-Conservative coalition. His refusal to consider anyone else's ideas is revealing.
When just a few weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition said that an eligibility threshold of 360 hours was imperative and absolutely necessary, and that they were prepared to go into an election before the end of June if the government did not compromise on this, he was right.
So how is it that the Prime Minister announced this week that that was out of the question and that he would not change his mind in the least, that a 360-hour threshold was out of the question?
The Leader of the Opposition, however, instead of standing up for his principles, preferred to put the interests of his political party and his own interests ahead of those of the public and unemployed workers. That is completely unacceptable.
Getting back to what we proposed, I would remind the House that the proposals we have brought forward are supported by a broad consensus in Quebec. Consider the motion passed by the Quebec National Assembly on January 15, 2009, setting out the demands of the Quebec National Assembly in five points. The four parties of the National Assembly, namely, the Quebec Liberal Party, the Parti Québécois, the Action démocratique du Québec and Québec solidaire, unanimously demanded several things from the federal government.
First, they called on the government to provide assistance to workers, communities and businesses affected by the economic slowdown.
Second, they called on the government to provide financial support to sectors experiencing problems, particularly the manufacturing and forest sectors. The motion pointed out that the government was applying a double standard: very generous assistance, which we agree with, to the auto sector, located mainly in Ontario, and nothing—just crumbs and peanuts—for the forestry sector, which is very present in Quebec.
The third thing the Quebec National Assembly was asking for was improvements to the employment insurance program. And again, we have seen absolutely nothing. We have a working group, but we know that it will produce precious little.
The fourth demand of the National Assembly was that the federal government maintain the equalization program. As we know, in the most recent budget, the Minister of Finance unilaterally changed the equalization formula, which will deprive Quebec of $1 billion. The Conservatives wanted us to vote for that, even though the Quebec National Assembly was asking for something else altogether. Had we voted for it, the Bloc Québécois would have truly been flouting the mandate we have been given, and that is out of the question.
The last thing was to say no to a Canada-wide securities commission. Here, I must mention the vote again, because it is a vote by the Liberal Party. The Conservatives, as we know, are obsessed with this issue, because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are nothing less than the puppets of Bay Street.
The Liberals, thinking they were being clever, remained seated. They did not vote. But by abstaining in that case, they voted with the Conservatives. No one is fooled by their strategy. We are also well aware that the Liberals, who are centralists—and the history of the Liberal Party proves it—also want to create this sort of commission, which would concentrate the financial sector in Toronto at Montreal's expense. No one in Quebec is fooled. By remaining seated and abstaining, the Liberals voted with the Conservatives as part of this new Liberal-Conservative coalition and against the interests of Quebec, and we will not forget to point that out.
I would also remind this House that on the issue of language of work, French, which is the common language in Quebec and the official language of the Quebec nation, the Liberal Party and the Conservatives voted against the bill I had introduced to require that federally regulated companies operating in Quebec be subject to the Charter of the French Language, Bill 101. Once again, the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against this bill.
The motion that is before us seals the pact between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, a coalition that has two main objectives. It takes aim against the interests of Quebec, against the interests of workers and against the interests of the unemployed, by depriving them of assistance.
I will conclude by saying that the best illustration this week of the hypocrisy of some members of this House was the statement made during question period by the member for Bourassa, the Liberals' political lieutenant in Quebec. He got all dramatic and said that amendments absolutely had to be made before the summer, or else the unemployed would starve. Now, the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the member for Bourassa have chosen to let workers and the unemployed starve. We will not be a party to this scandal.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the member from the Bloc. He talked about having one regulator. He talked about so many other things. He failed to talk about the issues in today's motion.
He described the panel on EI as bogus and phony, which is sad, because EI is an issue we have to address. It is an issue that cannot be solved overnight. It has to be looked into. Proposals have to be put forth, et cetera.
Members of his party show concern for the unemployed. Why has the hon. member prejudged it already? He said it will not work. Why does he call it bogus and phony? I do not think my colleagues are bogus or phony. They are tangible. We can touch them. Why has he done so? Why has he put such a negative spin on it right away?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, why are we saying that the bogus working group committee on employment insurance will do nothing? First, because the Prime Minister has already rejected the solution proposed by the opposition parties, the 360-hour threshold that was again brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that it was out of the question. That is the only tangible proposal made by the Liberals with regard to employment insurance.
The only tangible proposal from the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party during the election campaign was providing access to parental leave to independent workers—the self-employed. That benefit already exists in Quebec. It is of absolutely no use to Quebec or to Quebec workers. Right from the beginning, we know that the only two tangible proposals on the table give nothing to Quebec.
Beyond that, how can we have confidence in a working group with Liberals on it when they are at the root of the problem? I remind the House that the reform that made deep cuts to employment insurance—ransacked it, in fact—was carried out by Mr. Axworthy, a Liberal minister at the time. How can we trust them? As for the Conservatives, they have appointed a board whose only aim is to reduce premiums and ensure that the employment insurance system will never, ever be overhauled. If we put two arsonists together, there is bound to be a fire.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate on this last supply day. I can imagine viewers at home asking themselves, “What the heck is a supply day and what does it have to do with me?”. So I thought I would begin by trying to take a stab at answering both questions.
Tradition holds that Parliament does not grant supply, or the government's spending authority, until the opposition has had an opportunity to demonstrate why it should be refused. As a result, some days of debate are allocated to each opposition party and these are what we call supply days.
In this session of Parliament, the NDP had three such days and it is worth remembering that they are assigned to demonstrate why supply should be refused, not why it should be granted. Our supply days did precisely that. In drafting each of the three motions that were debated on our allotted days, we were governed by whether the government's economic action plan adequately addressed the needs of hard-working families and seniors.
In my riding of Hamilton Mountain and indeed in constituencies right across this country, Canadians are profoundly worried about their jobs, their pensions and their ability to pay their bills. They were counting on the federal government to take bold and strategic steps. They were looking to their members of Parliament to have courage in the face of adversity and so our motions addressed those very fundamental concerns.
I had the privilege of tabling a motion on comprehensive EI reform on behalf of our caucus. The second motion addressed credit card gouging and protecting Canadians from the abusive practices of credit card companies. The third motion dealt with pension reform, so that the very people who built our country can retire with the dignity and respect they deserve.
I am proud to say that all three NDP motions were passed by a majority vote in the House of Commons. In that way, we used our supply days as they were intended. We made strong cases on three of the shortcomings in the government's own economic action plan and we took our opposition role in the House of Commons seriously. Yes, it is our job to oppose, but we also believe that we can only be an effective opposition if we also propose better alternatives.
Fast forward to today. We are debating a Liberal supply day motion that does nothing but demonstrate why the government's spending authority should be granted. In fact, it might as well have been written by the government itself, oh wait, it partially was. It was the Conservative Party that first asked that the House not sit during the week of September 21 to accommodate meetings of the G20, yet here it is at the very heart of the Liberal supply day motion.
To add insult to injury for Canadians, the entire motion deals with amendments to the Standing Orders. I would bet the vast majority of Canadians do not even know what Standing Orders are. They are simply the codified rules of procedure that govern the House. Debating these rules is the ultimate expression of insider baseball. Canadians do not care about amendments to the Standing Orders. That is not what they mean when they ask us to please make Parliament work. They want us to make Parliament work for them, not for us. It is about their jobs, not ours. It is about having their concerns addressed. That is why they sent us here.
However, in their desperation to avoid a summer election, the Liberals put their needs ahead of the needs of working families. It is an absolute disgrace. Thankfully, the media are not letting them get away with it. David Akin wrote in his Hill Times blog that “NDP got billions, Libs got a working group”, cleverly reminding Canadians that when the NDP negotiated with the then minority government of Paul Martin in 2005, it turned $4.6 billion of corporate tax cuts into $1.6 billion for affordable housing, $1.5 billion for post-secondary education, $900 million for transit, $500 million for foreign aid, and $100 million for pension protection.
In 2009 the Liberal leader from Etobicoke—Lakeshore received a working group and an opposition day for supporting the minority government of the Prime Minister. After long hours at the negotiating table, the Liberal leader walked away with nothing of substance in exchange for his continued support of the Conservative government and its failed policies.
Aside from changes to the Standing Orders, all he could manage was a “blue ribbon panel” on employment insurance with limited scope that will not report back until September. That panel is cold comfort to the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians dealing with a deeply flawed EI system. As for the panel being a blue ribbon group, Canadians will be shocked to learn that it is made up solely of politicians and political staff.
However, politicians just passed an NDP motion on comprehensive EI reform in this very session of Parliament. It was endorsed by city councils and labour groups right across this country. We do not need more study. We need to start implementation and unemployed Canadians need that action now, not in September.
Instead, we get a panel that is half made up of Liberals, whose party in the mid-1990s was responsible for gutting EI in the first place, and who stole the $57 billion EI surplus from workers and used it to pay down the debt and deficit. The Conservative half of the panel includes the very cabinet minister who is on record stating that she is worried about EI becoming too lucrative.
The creation of this panel has nothing to do with protecting workers during this economic downturn and has everything to do with protecting the political aspirations of the Liberal and Conservative parties. Canadians need and deserve so much better. It is not as though there are not plenty of issues to choose from. I have already mentioned pensions, immediate EI reform and an end to credit card gouging. However, what about health care, the issue that is consistently top of mind for all Canadians?
There are three heart-wrenching words that no one ever wants to hear: “You have cancer”. However, for nearly 500 Canadians every single day, this diagnosis becomes a new fact of life. Historically, Canada has been a leader in easing that pain by producing medical isotopes used in the diagnosis and treatment of both cancer and heart disease. Now, that production is in peril. Thanks to government mismanagement and neglect, the reactor that produces these isotopes has shut down.
Cancer tests across the country are being cancelled, leaving desperate Canadians in a state of limbo during the most difficult period of their lives. Yet, the Conservative government, like the Liberal one before it, continues to drop the ball. It is too busy vying for political gain and calling cancer “sexy”, even in the face of this life-threatening national health care crisis.
Where was this issue in the so-called negotiations between the Liberal leader and the Prime Minister? Despite initial bluster, the rhetoric dissolved without any demand for real action. Where was the demand for expedited job creation? Unemployment numbers have now reached 400,000 just since the last election.
Despite a deficit that is now spiralling upward of $50 billion, money has still not reached local communities so that they can take advantage of this summer's construction season. The government says that 80% of the infrastructure money has been committed, but one cannot pave roads with press releases. The money needs to flow. Summer is here, but the living is still tough in far too many cities in Canada.
I am having a bit of déjà vu here. Members will recall that the first time I spoke in the House at the beginning of the current Parliament, I pointed out that it was the economic crisis and the government's cavalier response to the fears of Canadians in its fiscal update last fall that precipitated the political crisis of confidence and ultimately the constitutional crisis that shut down this place for two months.
Just when Canadians needed their government the most, the Prime Minister shut the doors on Parliament and effectively said that his need to protect his job was more important than the need to protect the jobs, pensions and savings of hard-working Canadians. Now, a mere six months later, it is happening again.
This time, the chief protagonist is the leader of the Liberal Party. He desperately wants to be prime minister, but he knows that he is not ready. He is having difficulty attracting credible candidates, his party's finances are not competitive, and he has still not been able to articulate what he stands for. Therefore, he has not differentiated himself from the Prime Minister we already have.
Certainly, this week's events will have even more Canadians saying to each other that they cannot see the difference and asking each other if they can. He was desperate to avoid an election at any cost, but his obligation is not to himself. In fact, I would remind all members in the House that it is not all about us. On the contrary, it is not about us at all, or at least it should not be.
We have the privileged opportunity to come to this chamber, not to fight for ourselves but to fight for our constituents. In these uncertain economic times, that means acting decisively to protect the vulnerable, safeguard today's jobs and create the jobs of tomorrow. The Liberals did not just lose the fight; they failed to even show up for it.
Mr. Speaker, when we arrived here on Monday as MPs, we knew that on Friday we were either going to go home to our constituents for the summer or else we were going to go to an election. I have spoken to a number of her colleagues in the last few days who have told us that they wanted a deal made and that they did not want to go to an election. It is not just because they were not doing so well in the polls right now. It is because they knew that Canadians did not want to have an election.
The bluster and hype that goes on here is a little hard to deal with on occasion. I understand that it is politics and in politics that is how things are, but she talks about the deal that we made so that we could do some work over the summer and perhaps come back with some EI proposals. She talked about some of the good ideas that the NDP brought forward. The Liberals supported a number of those in the House. As she said, they passed with a majority of the votes.
However, what have they done for Canadians? They have added nothing. There is nothing for Canadians as a result of that. It has not left the House. How can she say that it does not make sense to do a little bit of work over the summer and see if we can come up with some proposals when all the hype and bluster here has done absolutely nothing? The government members have not listened. Should they have? Yes, but they have not.
What have they added to the debate? We can pass things in Parliament. We can come to this place in Parliament, but we have to make a difference. In this Parliament, one can make a point or make a difference. I think that, in this case, we are going to make a difference. I ask her, what does she think about what they have done in this Parliament?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, particularly his profound concern about how the NDP are doing in the polls, especially since he comes from Nova Scotia. Does he remember who was just elected as premier in Nova Scotia? I could have sworn it was a majority NDP government. His concern about our polling number is a bit misplaced.
With respect to EI, the member supported the motion that the NDP put forward. The motion on EI called for four specific things: get rid of the two-week waiting period; 360 hours to qualify for EI with no regional diversion in terms of eligibility and access to employment insurance; better benefits; and access to employment insurance by the self-employed. We do not need more study. He voted for that EI motion and we need it to be implemented.
It is not negotiation when people walk away with absolutely nothing. Not a single step brings one EI recipient closer to improved benefits or one unemployed Canadian closer to having access to EI. That is what the negotiations should have produced, not more study when the solution is before the House.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the NDP member's speech and there are so many inconsistencies that I do not have time to dwell on all of them. However, I have to point out the hypocrisy of her statements about the actions of the Prime Minister and the government during the grand coalition effort in the last year. The Prime Minister was trying to protect the Canadian people from a coalition, the likes of which could only be conceived in the pits of Hades.
She talks about wanting to keep jobs. The leader of the NDP saw his one chance to become somebody in the House. The leader of the Bloc was smiling in the middle like a cat who just swallowed a canary because he would have some power to control Canada. The Liberal leader at the time had not quite clued into the fact that he had been sorely taken advantage of by the NDP leader, who was bouncing around like a jumping jack, and the Bloc leader, who saw his big chance to control the country.
The Conservative Prime Minister was trying to protect Canadians from this. He effectively did that and Canadians are far better off for it.
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the question was. I suppose the member was saying that how dare we propose a coalition but that they have the right to have a coalition, a Conservative and Liberal coalition. That one apparently is okay, but when other members of Parliament try to work in the best interests of Canadians, that is not the case.
I am not really sure I understand the question, but if he would like to tell me what it was really all about, other than an opportunity to try to perhaps bring some hyperbole into the debate, I would be happy to try to answer it again.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion, which calls for a number of things. It allows us to hold the government to account, adjust the House calendar in the fall and a number of other issues, as well. It also allows us, as members of Parliament, to arrive home tonight or tomorrow and see our families, which will welcome us.
Our constituents may not be as welcoming and they certainly would not have been delighted to see us knocking on their doors. I think people would have felt downright anger if we had been unable to do something productive so we could avoid an election in Canada. I know people never really want an election. They have more important things to do with their lives. We need to have them on occasion, but I think Canadians were right in this case. This was not the time to have an election.
My colleagues and I arrived here on Monday and nobody knew exactly what would happen. We knew Canadians were watching. I think this week Parliament rose to the level of the people we represent. There are differences among all parties, and those continue. The government is not completely satisfied and the opposition is not completely satisfied, and I say that about all opposition parties. However, I believe significant concessions have been made in the national interest.
I want to talk about employment insurance. EI is an issue that I have been involved with for some time now, ever since my appointment as critic for human resources two and a half years ago. To be frank, it was not an issue about which I had a lot of knowledge. I come from an area in Atlantic Canada. People often say that I am from Atlantic Canada, so EI is a big issue. In fact, in the riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, people need the maximum number of hours to qualify for EI, which is 700 hours. Many other parts of Atlantic Canada have seasonal issues of unemployment and areas of high unemployment and the hours to qualify are different.
In my view this is not a regional issue. It is a national issue. It may have regional implications, but this is a national issue of employment insurance. On taking my job, it became clear to me, from listening to stakeholder groups that represented workers and other social justice and business groups, that it was time for changes to EI.
My colleague from Wascana has correctly outlined the differences between the mid-1990s and today. There are very significant differences in the economy. EI has to adjust to the economic circumstances. We are in a crisis. EI, as a major part of our social infrastructure, has to play an important role as we recover from this crisis.
Over the last little while, particularly since the last election, EI has become a very significant issue to Canadians. There was nothing about employment insurance in the very partisan economic update. In fact, the Conservatives first denied there was a problem. This led to a showdown in the fall and toward Christmas. Then the Prime Minister shut down Parliament.
The Liberals first raised the alarm bell. With increased unemployment, people were experiencing, for example, delays in obtaining their benefits, sometimes up to 40-plus days. My colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche raised this issue in the House back in November. I think people in his constituency were waiting 55 to 60 days.
On November 27, 2008, I asked a question of the Minister of Human Resources about delays. She denied there was a problem. On December 19, I sent a letter to her, indicating we needed some action. Again, we did not get any indication that the government saw this as an issue.
Three months went by with no response until she sent me a letter in which she apologized for the delay in responding to my letter. However, she still did not address the issue about wait times for EI. Eventually we saw $60 million that appeared to have been dedicated toward easing the backlog of EI applications.
The other issue with respect to EI is this. Tens of thousands of Canadians have paid into EI but do not qualify. They paid into the plan and when they needed the help, it was not there. The Conservative government again failed to act for months, and as a result caused families to suffer.
On each issue, the Liberals fought day in and day out during this session of Parliament, calling upon the government to take real action on employment insurance, but it did not. We nearly ended up with an election, but this week we were able to avert that. From our point of view, the good thing from that is the Prime Minister has acknowledged it does not make sense to have 58 EI rates.
If we look at the chart of employment insurance, it is incredibly complicated. People need a degree in mathematics just to figure out whether they qualify, based on the hours they have, the employment rate in their region, et cetera. It does not make any sense that people who live in Ottawa do not qualify for EI, but if they work in the same place but live in Gatineau, they do. It is the same thing in Moncton and Dieppe. People could working in the same plant and one person would qualify, the other would not. In my own riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, one does not have to drive very far to see a very significant differentiation in terms of who qualifies for EI and who does not.
How do we fix it? We have seen private members' bills, studies and advocacy from a lot of people. The New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois have raised this in private members' bill for years, and I have supported them. I do not question their motivation on this, but I do question what has actually come out of it.
The member for Hamilton Mountain correctly talked about an opposition day motion she brought forward. The member for Welland has brought forward a bill. My colleague from the Bloc, who works with me on the human resources committee, has brought forward bills. The Bloc member for Brome—Missisquoi has a bill that passed the House and has to go to committee. We have supported these important bills. However, the problem is they have not helped one worker in the country. They have added up to nothing. It is inside baseball or inside Ottawa, so to speak.
The fact is when we come to this place, we can either make a point or we can make a difference. Let us try to make a difference. My colleague from Kings—Hants often speaks about this.
We will all go home tonight or tomorrow and we will have the chance to do our work. We all know it is not a summer vacation. MPs work very hard in their ridings. When we have come through a hard session, as we have recently, we have a lot to make up in our constituencies. We take our work very seriously. Nobody gets everything they want, but Canadians do get a couple of things. They get a summer without an election and they also have an opportunity to make significant improvement in employment insurance.
As a result of the discussions between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, I now have a summer job that I did not apply for, but which I am happy to accept. I am happy to work with my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I will work with the Minister of Finance, with the officials and with whomever I have to, because this is important work.
I will not stand here today and tell members that we will come to an agreement in September. It may well be that we cannot because we have certain principles. We have talked about 360 hours, and that has been maligned. I do not think it has even been a misunderstanding. There have been absolute deliberate mistruths spread about that 360-hour standard.
Right now people can get EI in many parts of the country for 420 hours. That is not a whole lot different from 360 hours. In fact, people cannot collect EI for a year anywhere in the country. The maximum was 45 weeks. With the extension of five weeks, it is now 50 weeks. Our proposal for the duration of the crisis, which I think makes a lot of sense, is people would be able to qualify for EI after 360 hours. They would still have a variable length of time in which they could collect it, starting at 19 weeks and going up to 50 weeks. A structural change to EI has to come.
The self-employed have talked for years about the need to be involved. It is not a simple issue. How do we determine who actually is eligible as a self-employed person? Should it be voluntary or should it be mandatory? There are those who would say both.
If we asked all Canadians who pay EI, “Would you like to pay EI?”, what we would have? Most people who think they might need it would pay for it. Those who did not think they would need it might not pay for it. That would be a normal thing. With the self-employed, it is a complicated issue, but it is time we tackled this. I think as a result of the restructuring, as an outcome of the crisis in economy, we will have more self-employed people. That is important.
However, regional fairness is important. Any one of us, the 308 members of Parliament in the House, would have a hard time going to our constituents and saying to them, in a time of economic crisis, that they need 700 hours to qualify but somebody else needs 420. The regional rates have made sense in economies in the past, but right now Canadians are hurting. It is about fairness. It is about a national standard. It is about doing what is right for Canadians when they need help.
Employment insurance is a very important piece of our social infrastructure. It is time to make it better. I certainly look forward to, and accept humbly, the opportunity to be a part of the task force. I hope we can make a difference for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's motto is Je me souviens, “I remember”. I remember when Jean Chrétien took power in 1993, he decided to get rid of the Conservatives' $54 billion deficit at the expense of the provinces and the unemployed by downloading responsibilities onto the provinces and slashing employment insurance. That was the Liberal style of government with Jean Chrétien as Prime Minister and Paul Martin as Minister of Finance. When they got together in 1993 and decided to eliminate the deficit, they asked the minister at the time, Doug Young, to squeeze employment insurance by increasing premiums and cutting benefits. It was a tough job that Doug Young started and Liberal minister Axworthy finished.
This week, we witnessed the creation of a Liberal-Conservative coalition. Because of the difficult economic situation, we are calling on the government to eliminate the two week waiting period and reduce the eligibility threshold to 360 hours. While in opposition, the Liberals called for the same thing as the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois is not here just to defend Quebec's rights, but to defend the rights of all workers and the unemployed. While the Liberals were in power, they governed like Conservatives. Now we have a panel made up of Liberals and Conservatives.
Today I am asking the member who will be on the panel if he is ready to commit right now to working very hard to achieve two goals: eliminating the two week waiting period and introducing a single 360-hour eligibility criteria for benefits. If he cannot do that, he should just take a vacation because he will be wasting his time on the panel.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we have gone through this in the House a number of times. The economic circumstances in 1990 were dire, but back then we were coming out of a $40 billion plus annual deficit. There were changes that had to be made.
There were changes to EI, but as the economy improved, not everyone benefited. We had pilot projects, including in many ridings that are held by the Bloc Québécois. We brought in maternity benefits for Canadians and extended that to a year. There were changes made.
The fact is that we are now in an economic crisis the likes of which we have not seen in generations. Now is the time to invest in the social infrastructure of Canada. Now is the time to be fair to Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast and provide regional fairness for employment insurance.
Mr. Speaker, we have stood in the House and defended the rights of employees and employers in this country against the 360 hour standard, because we do not think the 45 day work year is in Canada's interests.
One of the things that we have been very clear on is that we have stood behind EI. We have put more money into it. We are putting in an extra $5.5 billion. We are running a $5.5 billion deficit in EI. We are processing claims in less than two weeks. The public service has gotten behind this government's initiative. Those public servants have done a heck of a job getting money out to Canadians.
What is important is we have held the payroll taxes, taxes on small business, taxes on business in general, taxes that everyday Canadians who go to work have to pay.
I would like to know, will the member keep in mind the weight on small business, on employers and on everyday Canadians who pay these deductions? Will he keep that in mind when he is moving forward, or is he going to look at the NDP and Bloc plan that would substantially increase payroll taxes in this country? I can tell the member that the people in my riding do not want to pay it.
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that under a Liberal government, payroll taxes went down. The EI premiums went down 12 years in a row. They went down for employers and they went down for employees.
It is the Conservative government that has frozen them. In fact the Conservative government has included that as part of its stimulus. It said that $2.5 billion of stimulus is because it held the rates on potential increases in premiums.
According to the Caledon Institute that is similar to standing up on a Tuesday and announcing that everyone's taxes are going to double the next day and then the next day cancelling it and saying that is a $236 billion stimulus. It is phoney accounting.
I will say this about EI. There have been investments in EI. That is because there are more unemployed people in this Conservative recession.
I do not doubt the people at Service Canada. I think we are blessed to have the people at Service Canada on the front lines in my riding, in Peterborough and across the country. It is the political leadership I question. We could do a lot better.
Mr. Speaker, shortly, we will return to our ridings, back to the people who elected us, those we have the privilege to represent.
While at times other issues may have temporarily diverted Parliament's attention over the past six months, one issue has dominated everything, and that is the economy. We are in the midst of the most severe and widespread global recession in recent memory, a recession that all economists admit had no origins in Canada. As RBC Global Asset Management economist Patricia Croft observed, “This is not a made in Canada recession; this started outside of our borders”.
Regardless, this global recession has and will continue to impact Canadians, an impact that has been as brutal as it has been swift. In mere months unemployment has jumped to its highest rate in over a decade. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs so far this year. Behind each one of those job losses is a family facing harsh realities, sleepless nights and uncomfortable conversations around the kitchen table, conversations about paying the mortgage or the rent and perhaps even groceries. As TD chief economist Don Drummond bluntly declared, “This year will go down in the history books as one of the most difficult economic years for Canadians”.
Our Conservative government has and will continue to recognize the economic challenges that we face. That is why we have tirelessly and aggressively worked to protect our economy. That is why we continue to work with our global partners on a global solution to a global recession. That is why we conducted the most comprehensive and open prebudget consultation process in Canadian history. That is why we tabled the earliest federal budget in history on January 27. That is why we made the difficult but necessary decision to run a short-term deficit.
What we presented was more than a budget. It was an ambitious, 300-plus page economic action plan, a plan focused on providing timely, targeted and temporary stimulus to save and protect jobs today; all this while growing the Canadian economy for tomorrow. It is a plan that the IMF heralded as “large, timely and well-targeted fiscal stimulus, appropriately sized well above the fund's benchmark of 2% of GDP”.
Indeed, our economic action plan received broad endorsement from provincial premiers, municipal leaders, business leaders, economists, public interest groups, and most important, this Parliament.
What is more, since its January introduction, we have succeeded in helping Canadians by aggressively implementing our plan, first of all, by reducing taxes permanently, helping the unemployed through new training programs and an extended five weeks of EI, avoiding layoffs by enhancing the EI work sharing program, maintaining and creating jobs through massive infrastructure spending, improving infrastructure at colleges and universities, supporting research and technology, supporting industries and communities most affected by the global recession, improving access to and the affordability of financing for Canadian households and businesses. Most important of all, we have succeeded in doing all of this on a timely basis.
Indeed, 80% of this fiscal year's economic action plan's initiatives are already being implemented. What does this mean for Canadians? It means in every region of Canada families and businesses are paying less tax. It means unemployed workers are receiving enhanced benefits as well as training. It means major job-creating projects are breaking ground. It means more Canadians are keeping more of their money in their own pockets where it belongs.
Because of our tax cuts, such as raising the basic personal exemption and the ceiling on the lower and middle income tax brackets, little wonder on June 6 of this year Canadians celebrated tax freedom day three days earlier than last year and 19 days earlier than under the former Liberal government. It means more than 3,500 businesses across Canada have entered into an expanded EI work sharing program helping almost 130,000 employees, employees like the nearly 100 workers at the Michelin Canada plant in Waterville, Nova Scotia, where the plant has continued to operate under an EI work sharing program.
Our plan includes much more and we want Canadians to learn more about it. That is why we created a website, www.actionplan.gc.ca, that clearly lays out our plan's benefits for individuals, businesses and communities. What is more, that website is also part of our Conservative government's effort to show transparency and accountability with respect to our plan by allowing Canadians to track investments that we have made.
We have also shown accountability to Canadians through formal budget progress reports tabled in Parliament. The most recent program report was released in June and another will be released in September. I would remind this House that we explicitly made that commitment in January's budget document on page 72, where we pledged to “provide an update to Parliament the first week following the summer recess”.
Our recent progress report illustrates our government's aggressive implementation of our plan. Increasingly, we are also seeing glimmers of recovery in the global and Canadian economies. For example, this week the Canadian Real Estate Association reported that national resale housing market activity has returned to pre-recession levels, stating, “Strengthening consumer confidence, low interest rates and improved affordability are drawing buyers to the housing market across Canada”.
Listen to what some prominent economists are saying. Scotiabank economist Aron Gampel said, “We are in the process of turning the corner. Bonds, stocks, every market is telling you we are at this transition from recession to recovery”. BMO economist Doug Porter said, “It is more and more likely that the recession could be declared over by some point in the summer”.
While this will likely still be a very difficult year, with continued lagging job losses, such optimism is welcomed. What is not welcomed is the excessive talking down of Canada's economy by the Liberals.
Despite the challenges we are facing in our economy and the business people, entrepreneurs and workers who fuel it, Canada is still among the strongest in the world and will remain so with the help of our economic action plan and the continued strong efforts of the individual Canadians on whom this government relies to work hard, remain focused and be innovative.
Instead of talking down Canada's economy and ignoring the facts, Liberals should acknowledge that both the IMF and the OECD project that Canada will, first of all, experience the smallest contraction in the G7 for 2009, and have the strongest recovery in the G7 in 2010.
Liberals should also pay attention and listen to their former deputy prime minister, John Manley, who said:
| Everybody looks on us with envy in terms of our economy, our banking system, our stability.... Our debt to GDP ratio is the envy of the rest of the G7... |
American President Barack Obama said:
| ...in the midst of this enormous economic crisis, I think Canada has shown itself to be a pretty good manager of the financial system... |
The American magazine Newsweek said:
| Guess which country, alone in the industrialized world, has not faced a single bank failure, calls for bailouts or government intervention in the financial or mortgage sectors. Yup, it's Canada. |
Bob Zoellick of the World Bank said, “I think a lot of people would like to change places with Canada”.
Liberals should show some confidence, confidence in Canadians that we have beaten and are able to beat today's challenges and be stronger, more united and more prosperous for it in the end. As we celebrate this upcoming Canada Day, Liberals should keep in perspective and stop talking down our economy, because Canada is still the greatest place to do business and the greatest place to live.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that Canada certainly is the best place to be living and raising a family, but I do have questions for him, as one might imagine, during this debate.
Last night I had the pleasure of being on a CPAC panel with him and the member for Markham—Unionville. He will recall that the member for Markham--Unionville said that he could not guarantee that out of these negotiations unemployed Canadians would get relief through better access to EI, but the member for Markham--Unionville was hopeful.
As a government member, I wonder if the member opposite might be able to help me out here. The member for Markham—Unionville and his caucus voted for the NDP motion with respect to EI that called for uniform qualifying hours, 360 hours, across the country. It called for better benefits and access for the self-employed.
I just wonder which parts of those are now negotiable for the member for Markham—Unionville, in the process of having conversations with the government, or are these still principles that are being taken to the table?
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage that hon. member to ask the member for Markham—Unionville that question once again and maybe he would answer it this time.
I would not prejudge what the outcome of this is going to be. We on this side of the House actually make decisions based on what is good for Canada. We listen to Canadians. We listen to all sides of the debate in the House. We do not prejudge the outcome.
We preface our decisions on what is best for Canadians. We make sure that we read every document that is available to us, unlike the NDP. We make our decisions on what is best for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is pretty diligent. I am shocked that the government cannot produce the stats on the money that has actually been spent on infrastructure. The parliamentary secretary is up to date, so I am wondering if he could explain to us why the government cannot produce those stats. The Prime Minister said he could not produce them.
Mr. Speaker, I can answer that with a simple example. If I decide to hire a contractor to re-roof my house, it would not be smart of me to give that roofing contractor the money first in the hope that he will actually do the job and do it properly, and provide me with some sort of guarantee. That is the preface of the way the money is being handled. As projects get underway, as the money gets spent at other levels, we will pay the bills.
[Translation]
It being 10:30, pursuant to order made Thursday, June 18, 2009, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the opposition motion.
[English]
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18) the division stands deferred until later this day.
Main Estimates, 2009-10
| That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in. |
He said: Mr. Speaker, a few short months ago, this government began the monumental task of implementing budget 2009 and Canada's economic action plan, a plan designed to counter the effects of the global recession here at home.
In that time we have used every tool at our disposal to ensure the plan stays on track and that the money gets to where it needs to go. In the course of this time we have provided the largest, fastest stimulus package in the G8. We have increased tax relief for Canadians and we have expanded support for Canadians hardest hit by the recession. Our goal has been to ensure that we are able to respond quickly and effectively while ensuring accountability, and we are succeeding.
In just over 70 days, our government has put into place 80% of the largest economic recovery program in Canadian history. We have been taking unprecedented action in every region of Canada. In the course of this, we have permanently reduced the tax burden on Canadians. We have provided tax relief, improved access to financing for Canadians and their businesses. We have assisted unemployed workers through extended EI benefits and skills training. We have supported home ownership and created jobs through housing construction and created jobs through a massive injection of infrastructure spending.
In addition, we have supported the industries and communities hardest hit by the global recession. We have invested in the jobs of tomorrow through new supports for research and technology. Implementing our action plan has been our top priority. Our plan was possible because of our position of relative financial strength. In fact, as has been already stated today by some of the other speakers, Canada is being recognized as a leader by international financial people.
The World Bank president recently said:
| Canada’s experience offers lessons to others, especially its strong financial and regulatory environment that is helping it manage the shocks of the downturn, particularly in the banking sector. |
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Secretary-General Angel Gurria said:
| Effectively, Canada will be one of the first to come out of the recession. |
The International Monetary Fund said:
| Canada is better positioned than many countries to weather the crisis. It entered the crisis from a position of strength, reflecting a track record of strong policy management that has supported underlying macroeconomic and financial stability. |
It also highlighted that Canada's total government deficit as a percentage of GDP is the lowest in the G7. Canada's debt as a percentage of GDP is also the lowest in the G7.
The World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system out of 134 countries, first.
I am very pleased that our economic action plan is already making a difference and that this is being recognized on the world stage. More importantly, it is being recognized right here at home by Canadians.
We took a number of steps to get the funding flowing as quickly as possible. One of these measures was the creation of vote 35, a special, time-limited central vote in the main estimates allowing the Treasury Board Secretariat to approve up to $3 billion for budget implementation.
This vote has allowed the government to provide initial funding for ready-to-go initiatives in advance of the normal parliamentary supply schedule. This vote was necessary because of the proximity between the tabling of budget 2009 and the tabling of main estimates.
We recognized that the short timeframe simply did not allow enough time for departments and agencies to seek the necessary funding in the main estimates for initiatives outlined in our economic action plan. This funding has allowed programs to move forward quickly, programs that would have otherwise had to wait for up to six or more months for funding.
As the Prime Minister noted in his report to Canadians last week, 80% of the plan's general funding has been committed and it is now being implemented across the country. As the Prime Minister indicated, 3,000 projects are underway and with the passing of these estimates and other money bills, we will see even more being implemented.
The funding is creating and protecting jobs. It is building infrastructure, easing the tax burden on families and supporting Canadians who have lost their jobs. It is also helping threatened industries.
Last week, I had the pleasure of announcing a number of infrastructure projects in the province of Manitoba. I was with the Premier of Manitoba, who is a New Democrat. I must say that he has been responsible in his approach to the recession. He has worked with the federal government to ensure that the stimulus money flows. In fact, he indicated this stimulus funding was working.
For example, in Manitoba alone, last year there were 36,000 construction jobs. This year, there are 38,000 construction jobs, directly attributable to the stimulus funding that is going on through the programs of this government. I want to thank the premiers, like Premier Doer and others, who are in fact working with this government to ensure that this succeeds.
There is virtually no area of our economy that this funding does not touch. It is being used to invest in the skills and knowledge of Canadians. For example, last month we introduced the knowledge infrastructure program, a two-year $2 billion economic stimulus measure to support infrastructure enhancements at Canadian post-secondary institutions.
In fact, I had the pleasure of being with Dr. Lloyd Axworthy, the president of the University of Winnipeg, who praised this government's initiatives in respect of the stimulus funding. People can go to Winnipeg today and see the holes being dug in the ground. Dr. Axworthy and his staff are thankful for the initiative of our government to help the university move along with that $18 million grant provided to it, which was matched by the provincial government.
Just this week our government announced $1 billion to support environmental improvements for the pulp and paper industry, not to mention all the funding for roads, bridges, recreational and community facilities. For instance, there is a bridge on a main road through the entire southern portion of the province of Manitoba. That bridge was virtually falling and, indeed, is still in danger of virtually falling into the Red River. The Liberals did absolutely nothing in that respect.
We brought forward money together with the province. There will be a brand new bridge built and it will not only facilitate commerce, farming and other traffic throughout the southern part of Manitoba but will provide an alternative route during the flooding.
The member from P.E.I., the former minister of agriculture, asks about farmers. I can inform him that farmers in my riding have been calling for that kind of funding for years. It was not until this government partnered with the provincial government to get that bridge underway. We are also seeing success for farmers, to help them in their work.
I appreciate the support that the Liberals have given us to date. I wish the support had come a little earlier but better late than never. It is certainly much better than the New Democrats who have consistently opposed measures for every single sector in my province and, indeed, right across this country.
Mr. Speaker, I think the crux of the matter for most Canadians and members of the opposition is that the government has not been getting the moneys that this Parliament, this opposition party and other opposition parties authorized. I know this has to be of concern to the minister. It has to be of concern to all members of the government. However, it is particularly of concern to Canadians.
Frankly, it is disingenuous for the government to claim that it is actually getting money out the door when it is not. In my riding, whether it is an overpass extension in Langford, sewer extensions in Sooke, or moneys for the University of Victoria, Royal Roads University, or Camosun College and their Pacific Institute for Sport Excellence, moneys have been promised but not delivered.
I would like the minister to please tell the House and our citizens how the government is going to get moneys out the door within the next few months. If it does not, it is simply missing the entire construction season and missing all the opportunities that people such as Mr. Les Bjola in my riding and his development projects need in order to put workers back to work.
I have one last point. There is a great opportunity for the government to provide credit to developments that have taken place. This would get money into the real economy and I implore the government to tell the House—
Mr. Speaker, I find the member's comments rather surprising. In fact, all across this country, work is being done. Why it is not being done in his particular riding I do not know. I think he will have to approach the ministers, which he apparently has not done, and ask why certain projects have not proceeded.
The issue is not so much whether the money is flowing; the issue is whether the work is being done. We are not simply going to shovel money out the door, as has been done with some past governments. We are saying to our provincial, municipal, private sector and NGO partners that we are prepared to partner with them. We have negotiated contribution agreements and we are continuing to negotiate them.
On the basis on the contribution agreements, such as the one we did with the University of Winnipeg or the one we did with the Province of Manitoba for the Letellier bridge, that means the work can commence immediately, and the work is commencing immediately. The money will flow in due course. We are very pleased. Our public servants have moved this ahead of the regular schedule by six to nine months.
Mr. Speaker, I was really puzzled by the last question by the hon. member from the opposition. Indeed, the infrastructure programs have moved at warp speed. All levels of government and all civil servants have been approving projects and getting money out the door.
Could my hon. colleague share some more great examples of shovels getting into the ground and money getting out the door? I think we have done an absolutely amazing and very rapid job.
Mr. Speaker, I can reiterate some of the other programs. I do not want to boast about how efficient we have been in respect of working with municipal and provincial governments. All I can do is reiterate the general statement that the Premier of Manitoba, a New Democrat who works with this government as opposed to opposing everything like the federal New Democrats, said, that we have increased the number of construction jobs in the province of Manitoba from 36,000 to 38,000.
This is in the middle of a recession. He has clearly indicated that it is a direct result of the stimulus funding that we have instituted in cooperation with the provincial government and municipalities. We will continue to work with NGOs like the president of the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Lloyd Axworthy, who praised this government for the funding, indicating that the shovels are in the ground. The work is happening.
So I can only agree with the member. The person from Nanaimo who indicated that things are not getting done in his riding needs to perhaps speak to one of the ministers over here to make sure that things are getting done in his riding if he cannot get those done by himself.
Mr. Speaker, 2009 has been quite a ride. It began with all of us returning to the House after the Prime Minister had prorogued the first session of the 40th Parliament after only 10 sitting days, before the ink had even dried on the Speech from the Throne.
After the Conservatives took their six-week vacation, they returned to the House in January and admitted that the government was not in fact running a small surplus as it had claimed. No, they were running a $34 billion deficit. Then, four months later, we discovered they were actually running a $50 billion deficit this year, and for good measure they ran one last year, too.
I have to make it clear, the Liberal Party is not in the slightest opposed to fiscal stimulus. What we are opposed to is the fact of runaway Conservative spending during good times such that they ran down their inherited $13 billion surplus and they were heading into deficit before the recession even arrived.
As a consequence, today's deficit is far greater than it need be had these Conservatives managed prudently during good times. In fact, I warned them two February's ago that they were heading in this direction. I will do the unusual thing of quoting myself from two years ago, when I said:
| Consider the fact that less than four months ago the Finance Minister delivered a fiscal update that projected Canada's gross domestic product would grow by 2.4% in 2008. Yesterday he downgraded that forecast to 1.7% growth. If in a few months from now it turns out the minister was once again wrong by the same amount, then that alone is enough to give the country a slight deficit this year and a bigger deficit next year. |
That was two budgets ago, and they paid no attention. Look where we are today.
We have also spent a lot of time in this House and in committee warning that the government was wrong-headed in terms of the new employment insurance crown corporation, that it was not well equipped to handle a recession. On many occasions, I and many others stressed that the EI account needed to be balanced over the business cycle, not just over two years, in order to avoid massive swings in the premium rate, especially in the event of a recession. Actuaries from across the country all told them the same thing.
As usual, the government paid no attention, and last November we saw how this played out. The government had to re-seize the rate-setting mechanism from the new EI corporation and hold it steady. It did, however, increase the maximum contribution for anyone earning more than the average industrial wage. Those employees and their employers had a payroll tax hike in the middle of a recession.
The part that the Conservatives really do not like to talk about is the future EI tax increases that the finance minister has already booked into the fiscal framework beginning in 2011. Page 233 of the budget clearly says that not only has the finance minister already decided to increase these payroll taxes 18 months from now, it says he has already included the revenue from his future tax hike into the EI account's revenue stream.
So much for being a Conservative Party that does not like tax hikes. They have already built them into the budget. This morning, the Montreal Gazette said:
| [S]harply higher premiums are foreseen beginning in 2011 and running until 2016. |
So much being a party, the Conservative Party, that does not believe in hiking taxes. These were deliberate choices made by the Prime Minister and the finance minister, and they will have real consequences for Canadians.
Let us not dwell too long in the past, especially on this last day of Parliament. Let us instead look to the future and to the good work that will be done this summer on changes in the employment insurance system.
Currently there are 58 separate regions with varying EI qualifying rates and benefit levels. During a recession, this simply makes no sense. Employers simply are not hiring the way they were even two years ago. So those who lose their job in a region with relatively low unemployment are likely in the same boat as those who lose their job in an area of high unemployment.
Despite being in the same boat, however, the government will not treat applicants the same because of where they live. As a particular case in point, all of us have assistants in the House, and if assistants happen to live on one side of the Ottawa River they have to work far fewer hours than if they live on the other side of the Ottawa River. So all of us in the House know that it makes no sense at all. Indeed, it has been described as unfair by all the western premiers, by my premier here in Ontario, by think-tanks of the left and by think-tanks of the right of the political spectrum.
It has been a long, tough battle to get the Prime Minister to acknowledge finally that the EI system is not working right now, but we did get this acknowledgement at the final hour. As a result of the strong negotiating abilities of my leader and my colleagues and good friends from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, I am convinced that they will negotiate firmly with this recalcitrant, reluctant government over the summer and I am hopeful that at the end of the summer we will collectively come up with a solution that will provide major help to those Canadians who have unfortunately lost their jobs.
I would like to devote my remaining few minutes to the theme of prudence and how a finance minister ought to be exercising prudence in guiding the nation's finances. I want to give two examples, one from the past and one that will hopefully materialize in the future.
I have already referred to the Conservatives reckless spending during good times, such that we were taken from a big surplus to a deficit before the recession even began. I would say the one major act of imprudence committed by the finance minister during those days is that he got rid of the $3 billion contingency reserve, which had been an insurance policy applied over many years by previous Liberal governments to avoid deficits. He simply yanked that off the table and we can see where we are today in terms of deficits.
My second point is about the debt. The point is that we today are living in a world of historically extremely low interest rates, close to zero at the short end, up to just under 4% at the long end. Therefore, the great risk for Canadians and for future generations is that there will be a spike in interest rates. With the government having to borrow for refinancing purposes over $200 billion per year, imagine the impact on the deficit if there were a big spike in interest rates.
A prudent finance minister , at this time of historically low interest rates and major borrowing requirements, would seek to lock in more of the debt at longer terms so as to reduce this risk of a huge impact on the deficit were there to be a spike in interest rates. However, I can tell the House, so far the finance minister's record on this subject is going in the wrong direction, the imprudent direction, because the debt of this nation has been coming shorter term rather than longer term because the borrowing is concentrated at the short ends and not at the long ends.
What the finance minister for the second time is doing is engaging in imprudent behaviour. He is failing to take advantage of the historically very low interest rates to lock in a higher proportion of the national debt at the longer terms so as to reduce the risk of a huge impact on the deficit should interest rates spike in the future.
We know that the finance minister has behaved imprudently on the contingency reserve in the past. We can still hope that he will exercise a modicum of prudence and move to a longer term structure of our debt so as to reduce the risk of interest rate spikes for current and future generations. So far, the budget talks of him moving in the opposite direction. Therefore, I am concerned for the sake of our children and our grandchildren that the minister is not managing our national debt in a prudent fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by the member for Markham—Unionville. It is always fascinating to hear the member quoting himself, and I will come back to that at the end of my question. I would remind the hon. member that in quoting oneself, one needs to be a little cautious about having one's quotes maybe read back to him. We will see where that goes in a moment.
However, the member mentioned that the Liberals had put in place a contingency reserve. We have heard all kinds of numbers of what that was.
Could the hon. member for Markham—Unionville, who seems to know so much about a contingency reserve, please tell me exactly in which legislation that was put? I have been searching high and low and I cannot find it.
However, before he answers that question, let me read a quote, “The Conservative government is overstating the risks because many experts expect the Canadian economy to grow by up to 2.5 per cent this year”. That quote was on January 1, 2008. The hon. member told us how he had predicted two years ago that the entire world would into a recession. Could the hon. member please tell me who made that statement publicly?
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives love to cite quotes with no context and the Liberals like to go the middle way, the sensible way.
The explanation for that quote is the Prime Minister one day was talking about Canada leading the way out, that we would have no recession. The next day he was ruminating about depression. The context for that quote was it immediately followed the Prime Minister's irresponsible talk about the possibility of depression. It was incumbent upon me, after that irresponsible depression talk by the Prime Minister, to tell Canadians that, yes, things were not that terribly wonderful, but we were not heading into depression. It was up to me to inject a note of optimism after the depression talk by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about the NDP not reading the economic statement. I read it. I read the last 30 pages of the economic climate. Within that piece of the document, there was not one mention about the exchange rate between Canada and the U.S., which is one of the largest determinants of our trade relationship.
Could the hon. member explain how the government can consider the future of the country in the absence of that very important information?
Mr. Speaker, it is a little weird that I am asked to defend this so-called economic action plan and the deficiencies of it. I could join with my colleague over there and list 101 further deficiencies of this plan.
However, in answer to his specific question, the government of the day, whether Conservative or Liberal, is not in the business of forecasting currency rates. Nor is it in the business of actually running that side of the show. That is principally the responsibility of the Bank of Canada.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Escuminac, New Brunswick
Mr. Speaker, today marks the 50th anniversary of the tragic disaster that befell the residents of Escuminac, New Brunswick. Thirty-five lives were brutally taken by the sea, leaving behind widows and orphans, as many as 13 in some families.
During this weekend, 3,000 people are expected to attend gatherings, some to remember and some younger ones to be made aware of what those victims and families have endured.
Today, as we honour those who died during the fishing disaster and salute the brave heroes of that day, I wish to pay tribute to the community that pulled together and to mark the strength and the courage of the survivors who bravely moved forward.
National Aboriginal Day
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to recognize National Aboriginal Day this Sunday, June 21, as we kick off 11 days to celebrate Canada.
Appropriately, we begin this celebration with an acknowledgement of Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people, recognizing their primacy in this great land.
[Translation]
The 11-day celebration will continue with Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day on June 24, Canadian Multiculturalism Day on June 27 and Canada Day on July 1.
[English]
Sunday is an opportunity to express our great pride in the rich and diverse cultures that thrive among aboriginal peoples, as they gather to celebrate their past, present and future through stories, song, dance, theatre and sacred ceremonies.
National Aboriginal Day also gives all Canadians the chance to pause and to reflect on work still undone, the opportunity to commit again to justice and dignity for first nations, Métis and Inuit people and to their full participation in the economic, social and cultural prosperity of this great country.
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to you in the hope that the federal government will once and for all understand the true needs of workers who are losing their jobs. On behalf of all those who have already been penalized upon losing their jobs, I am asking that the two week waiting period be eliminated.
It is inconceivable that these people, who pay premiums, must wait two weeks before receiving benefits and that they never receive anything for these two weeks.
Rather than creating a Liberal-Conservative alliance to set up a panel that will only report back in the fall, it was vital for Liberal and Conservative members to take immediate action in the true interests of workers.
A petition calling for the elimination of the waiting period is being circulated in Quebec, including in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. Thousands of people have already signed it. Citizens want change now.
[English]
Iran
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are extremely concerned about the situation in Iran. Protestors are being crushed, the means of communication among Iranians has been restricted and political activists have been jailed. Yet thousands of opposition supporters are standing their ground, defying a ban on protests and requesting a new election. This is a critical moment not only for the people in Iran, but around the world.
In the words of poet Sa'di:
| The children of Adam are limbs of each other |
| Having been created of one essence. |
| When the calamity of time afflicts one limb |
| The other limbs cannot remain at rest. |
In the spirit of that, New Democrats stand in solidarity with the democratic aspirations of the people of Iran. We call for an end to the hostilities against peaceful protests, an immediate release of political prisoners and a fair and transparent electoral process that respects the genuine will of the Iranian people.
Father's Day
Mr. Speaker, this Sunday is Father's Day and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to and honour fathers across Canada.
Fathers play an integral role in our society. Strong families contribute to the health and success of our communities.
I am thankful for my father, Ernie Anderson, who has been a source of wisdom, encouragement and strength to me. He has often told me, work hard, be honest and be a person of integrity and I will do just fine. Now that I am a member of Parliament, he claims to be my biggest fan.
I am also grateful for the father of my four beautiful children, Milton Block. My love and appreciation for him grows with each year for the strength and leadership he provides to our family.
On Sunday, I hope Canadians across the country will join me in taking the time to show appreciation to their fathers for all they have done.
Anniversary Celebration
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to pay tribute to Canon “Sid” Davies as we celebrate the 70th anniversary of his ordination.
Canon Davies is better known to Nova Scotians simply as “Sid”. And for the last 30 years, Sid has called the Valley his home. He has and continues to serve the community as a leader and as a mentor, inspiring us with his energy, hard work and wise counsel. In its tribute to Sid, St. John's Church said it best:
| Canon Davies is a most remarkable man—faithful and diligent in his priestly duties; energetic and wise in his work in the wider community; and a sterling example of what it is to be a “muscular Christian”. |
Sid has received many honours, including an award from the VON for being the most outstanding volunteer in Canada, and an honorary Doctorate of Divinity from the Atlantic School of Theology.
The parish of Cornwallis will honour Sid once against next Wednesday. I congratulate Sid on this momentous occasion. He is truly the salt of the earth.
Doug Matheson
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 88-year life of a great Canadian. Doug Matheson was a war hero, lawyer, judge, flying instructor, too many other things to list and general inspiration to all who had the privilege of knowing him.
Shot down in his Spitfire in 1943, he evaded the Nazis for several months before being captured. He escaped execution as a spy and spent the rest of the war in Stalag Luft III, including spending time as a tunneler for the Great Escape.
After the war, he earned a law degree and was later appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta.
His passion for life and the people in it never waned and his love of flying lasted a lifetime. He was a fixture at the Edmonton Flying Club for decades and tutored countless young pilots. At the age 87, Judge Matheson decided it was time to get his helicopter qualification, and he did so. Age was just a number to Doug.
On Monday Doug departed Edmonton for a flight over the Badlands in his Beechcraft Bonanza. He never came back. Somewhere along the way, he slipped the surly bonds of earth for the last time, put out his hand and touched the face of God.
He will be missed. Happy landings, D.R.
[Translation]
Commemoration of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham
Mr. Speaker, September 13 will mark the 250th anniversary of the battle of the Plains of Abraham and of the defeat that holds sad memories for Quebeckers.
General Wolfe had warned our people. He wrote that if they resisted, their homes would be pillaged, their churches exposed to mobs of angry soldiers, and their crops completely destroyed. Wolfe took action, and burned the entire lower St. Lawrence.
Quebec was bombarded for two months. More than half of its population was lost between 1758 and 1762. Its main teaching institution was shut down to house the occupying troops. Our nation experienced a real social breakdown.
Despite the defeat, Quebeckers defended their language. The members of the Bloc are carrying on that battle here in this very House.
Our compatriots can now boast of expertise in all disciplines, a network of institutions and an advanced democracy in many respects. Today, they are ready to become a free country.
[English]
National Aboriginal Day
Mr. Speaker, Sunday, June 21, is National Aboriginal Day, a day for all Canadians to celebrate the unique heritage and contributions of aboriginal peoples to Canada.
For generations, this day of summer solstice has been a time for first nations, Inuit and Métis to express pride in their rich and distinct cultures and in their accomplishments. It is also a chance for all Canadians to recognize these accomplishments, as well as aboriginal peoples' integral role in Canada's history and development as a nation.
The government is committed to addressing the needs and concerns of aboriginal peoples. We have made progress on many fronts, including economic development, housing, new schools, safe drinking water, land claims and development in the north.
I encourage all Canadians to participate in National Aboriginal Day activities and to share in the celebration.
Loran Award
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to a young woman from my riding who is excelling in the academic world.
Two years ago Juliette Dupre from St. Lawrence was awarded a scholarship to attend Lester B. Pearson College in Victoria, B.C. As she prepares to leave this prestigious college, Juliette has been selected as one of 30 students to receive the Loran Award. The Loran Award provides funding of up to $75,000 for four years of post-secondary study.
Juliette has decided to enter the field of medicine and hopes to somebody work with Doctors without Borders. I am sure she will bring the same enthusiasm and determination to this latest endeavour as she has brought to other initiatives, whether it was running marathons, volunteering as a firefighter, working with the Boys and Girls Club or teaching dance to a special needs class.
Juliette is the daughter of Guy and Rosalie Dupre and is a prime example of the confidence and energy that can be found in so many of our youth. Her family, her community and her province are rightly proud of this young woman.
I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating Juliette Dupre.
Don Newman
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a broadcasting institution. Later today, CBC's Politics with Don Newman will come to a close. His famous phrase “Welcome to the broadcast” is a trademark that will live on in Canadian political history for decades to come.
Although Don Newman has received numerous honours, from Gemini Awards to the Order of Canada, the real proof of his outstanding work has been seen daily in his interviews and on his show. Throughout his 40 year career he has conducted himself in a professional journalistic manner, which not only gained him the respect of his colleagues in the media but the respect of politicians on all sides of the House. Don has always treated us fairly, no matter what political party we come from.
Anyone who has ever known Don Newman or met Don Newman knows he is truly a class act. He is an example of journalism at its finest.
Don Newman
Mr. Speaker, Canadian broadcasting says farewell to a giant of journalism today, and we are going to be the poorer for it.
Don Newman, the face and voice of political commentary on the CBC, is stepping down from his long-standing broadcast today. From his desk, he held prime ministers and many of us to account with tough questions, direct interchange and discussion of the important issues of the day.
I remember the first time I sat across from his desk was slightly intimidating, but he was very fair and, more than that, he opened up with a self-deprecating humour that Canadians across the country have come to love.
I wish Don the very best, as do all New Democrats, on his last official broadcast. We wish him well for many years to come. I am sure we will hear his distinctive voice from time to time, but I do not think anybody else will be able to say, “The spin stops here” the way Don Newman does.
Thank you, Don.
Iran
Mr. Speaker, the situation in Iran remains extremely alarming. Hundreds of thousands of people have been demonstrating on the streets of Tehran and throughout the country questioning the results of the presidential election and demanding justice. Today Ayatollah Khamenei warned that street protests must stop or opposition leaders would be held responsible for the ensuing violence.
Our government continues to express its deep concern over the allegations of fraud, and we continue to call for a full and transparent investigation. The votes of all Iranians must count, and innocent Iranians must be able to freely express their views without fear of intimidation or violence.
Iranian authorities have asked Canada to abstain from commenting on the situation. We will do no such thing. Our government will continue to promote democracy and we will continue to challenge Iran on human rights.
[Translation]
Aleksandra Wozniak
Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to an outstanding athlete from my riding, Aleksandra Wozniak. Even though she is just 21 years old, this tennis player has made us proud with her achievements on the courts. After an impressive career as a junior, during which she rose in the ranks to third in the world, played in nine finals and won six titles, Aleksandra turned professional in 2005.
In 2008, she became the first female player from Quebec to win a WTA tournament, defeating in the process the fifth-ranked player in the world and former number one, Serena Williams. Aleksandra currently ranks 23rd in the world, the highest ranking ever achieved by a woman from Quebec.
Aleksandra is currently in England, where she has reached the semi-finals of the Eastbourne tournament. Next week, she will play in the prestigious Wimbledon tournament. All the Bloc Québécois members join me in congratulating Aleksandra on her stellar achievements, and we wish her the best of luck in London.
[English]
Don Newman
Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute, along with others, to a journalist and a gentleman, a lion of the press gallery whose rich baritone is the envy of his colleagues.
Tonight, after 48 years in journalism, Don Newman will leave the anchor's chair at CBC's Politics.
A generation of Canadians have grown up with Don as the great explainer. He is tough, fair and balanced.
[Translation]
From health insurance to Watergate to Meech Lake, he has accurately interpreted the events that have marked our history. Thanks to him, Canadians have a better understanding of their government and their political system.
[English]
Bravo. Don brought honour to his profession and insight to his fellow citizens. Our very best wishes to Don and Shannon. This whole place is going to miss him.
Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, over the last few months we have learned a lot about the leader of the Liberal Party. Here are some of his ideas to help the economy and Canadians during these tough times.
On April 14, the Liberal leader announced that he “will have to raise taxes”. At its recent convention, the Liberal Party reaffirmed its commitment to imposing a job-killing carbon tax. The Liberal leader said he would raise the GST and the Liberal Party said it would eliminate the universal child care benefit. Based on his statements, we now believe him when he calls himself a “tax-and-spend Liberal”.
Another worrying revelation the Liberal leader has made is that he believes Ukrainians are just little Russians, and that, “Ukrainian independence conjures up images of embroidered peasant shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phoney cossacks in cloaks and boots, nasty anti-Semites”.
It is okay to be a proud Russian, but the Liberal leader does not need to belittle Canadians of Ukrainian descent to be proud of his heritage.
ORAL QUESTIONS
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Medical Isotopes
Mr. Speaker, in May 2008, following the last isotope crisis, this government's own panel of experts said that the government must provide Canadians with a credible, transparent plan the next time isotope production stopped. Production stopped again in Chalk River five long weeks ago, and for the second time under this government's watch.
Where is the public, transparent and credible plan for Canadians?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the lack of a reliable supply of medical isotopes is a serious situation that the government takes very seriously and is addressing in a global manner. In the long term, it is important for Canadians to have a secure and reliable supply of medical isotopes.
That is why I am very pleased to announce today that Peter Goodhand, president and CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society; Dr. Tom Mason, director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States; Richard Drouin, former chair of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation; and Dr. Eric Turcotte, head of the Molecular Imaging Centre of Sherbrooke have agreed to serve on our expert review panel.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I should be asking the minister what its mandate is, what the purpose of this panel is, and will there be a plan? However, I must ask another question.
What is the future of isotope production in Canada? The Prime Minister said Canada was going to stop producing isotopes and the government's own adviser in this file said that abandoning the rest of the world like that would be, and I quote, “criminal”.
Why does the Prime Minister and this government insist on maintaining this irresponsible course of action—
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is obviously clear that the Leader of the Opposition does see benefit and value to having an expert panel advise on matters because that is what was announced this week on other matters. In this case, our expert panel will examine proposals from across the country on alternative methods of producing medical isotopes over the medium term and long term.
We are very thankful and grateful for the diverse experience and international expertise that these people are bringing to the table. Their advice to the government in moving forward will benefit all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, this side of the House will welcome anything that will assure an adequate supply of isotopes to Canadian patients. We welcome this development, but we have to continue to ask why we got into this situation in the first place with no backup plan.
Will this committee of experts come out with a credible plan that shows us where the shortfall will be made up?
Mr. Speaker, on the question that the Leader of the Opposition started off with, I would suggest that he turn to the member sitting at his right hand and ask him that question. The member for Wascana was the Minister of Natural Resources in 2001 when the CNSC admitted it would have to bring out the cement machines to fill in the MAPLEs because it was clear it was an inherently flawed design.
Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, let me raise another issue on the government's conduct. Today the mayor of Toronto and the premier of Ontario are in Thunder Bay to announce funding for new streetcars. The federal minister responsible has so far contributed nothing more than a profanity.
Why is the government not supporting a project that will create thousands of jobs in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba? Why is it not supporting a world-class company, Bombardier, and why is it not supporting energy-efficient transit for Canada's largest city?
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is we are supporting Canada's economic action plan. The Leader of the Opposition voted for that economic action plan.
One of the requirements of that stimulus fund is that we get projects moving quickly and that they conclude within the next two years. That was the plan this House supported. That was the plan the Leader of the Opposition supported. We are moving aggressively to create jobs in Toronto now, not in the next 5 or 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, this party did not approve a plan that was going to stiff Canada's largest city.
By turning its back on this project, the government is demonstrating an astounding lack of vision. The government has an opportunity to invest in public transit to create jobs and move the economy forward, all for an estimated $312 million. It sounds like a good investment to me, the kind of investment that fuels economic recovery.
Why is the government missing in action? Why—
The hon. Minister of Transport.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and every single member of the Liberal caucus, every single Liberal MP, voted for a stimulus plan that would last for two years.
This government has been very committed to supporting public transit in Canada's largest city. We are supporting the Spadina subway extension. We are supporting major investments in GO Transit. We are a third partner for the Sheppard line. In the budget we also included significant new resources to help clean up the most important building in the province, Union Station.
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a full-blown economic crisis and this is the last sitting of Parliament before the summer recess. Meanwhile, the co-leader of the Liberal-Conservative coalition is preparing for a fall election and the Prime Minister is holding a photo op. This is a clear indication of how little the coalition cares about the public.
Will the new coalition admit that it has entered into an agreement that will buy time in order to better prepare for a future election rather than help the businesses and workers seriously affected by this crisis?
Mr. Speaker, naturally, this is another black day for the Leader of the Bloc Québécois and his party because, today, they wanted to leave the Hill on a bus with their leader's picture on the side and start off on the election campaign. They were prepared to squander half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money. We stopped them. We defended the interests of Quebeckers because they do not want to go to the polls.
Quebec
Mr. Speaker, this coalition abandons not only the unemployed, but also all of Quebec. Quebec has received nothing for harmonizing the GST, nothing for funding post-secondary education, nothing for equalization. Instead, the coalition has not stopped doing things to hurt Quebec. It voted in favour of a Canada-wide securities commission and against the application of Bill 101 in the Canada Labour Code. They truly are token Quebeckers.
Will this new coalition admit that it has done everything but defend the interests of the Quebec nation?
Mr. Speaker, since we came to power, the Bloc's approach has always been to play the bogeyman. Equalization payments have increased by 70% since we took power. Not to mention the seat at UNESCO and the recognition of Quebec as a nation. All these people want is to create crises. In addition, we just announced $394 million for knowledge infrastructure. We are Quebeckers who are taking action for Quebec, and not—
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is against any proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois before he even knows what it is. But while the Liberals have no ideas and fully support the Conservatives' so-called plan, we have tabled two complete plans to get us out of this crisis and to meet the needs of the unemployed and the struggling sectors, like the forestry sector.
By systematically refusing to consider our proposals, is the Liberal-Conservative coalition not showing its bias against Quebec and against workers?
Mr. Speaker, we must support the people who are struggling because of the international economic crisis. We have put measures in place to support the unemployed. We have prolonged employment insurance benefit periods by an additional five weeks. If a person receives $400 a week, that means that this person will receive an extra $2,000.
Furthermore, we extended the job-sharing period by 14 weeks. In Canada, 3,200 companies are taking advantage of the change we made to employment insurance. We will continue to stimulate the economy.
Employment Insurance
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition told his troops that the sham employment insurance panel would amount to nothing and that they should be in election mode. The coalition's two sides have put their parties' interests before the people's interests.
Does that lack of principle explain why, today, one half of the coalition was at a photo op while the other was preparing for an election?
Mr. Speaker, we have already announced that a panel will study ways to improve the employment insurance system. We also announced that, as of this fall, self-employed workers will be able to benefit from the employment insurance system if they wish to contribute to it. Those are two of the measures we have put in place to support workers.
With respect to forestry, we have implemented four different measures in the space of a month and a half to support the forestry sector, but of course they are always against everything we do.
Industry
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have an aversion to government intervention, and this is putting tens of thousands of jobs at risk.
We watched as they rode on President Obama's coattails in the auto sector. The forestry sector is getting assistance in dribs and drabs, while jobs are being slashed.
Nortel was flatly refused when it turned to Ottawa to try to save thousands of high tech jobs and protect pensions.
Why is the government so indifferent to the suffering of so many people in these tough economic times?
Mr. Speaker, that is not at all the case. I met with Nortel management last January, and there was no commercial framework for intervention in that case.
[English]
I had those meetings with the head of Nortel. He did not present a commercially viable business case. Evidently the board of directors agreed with that decision because they are the ones who made the decision to bring that enterprise into CCAA bankruptcy protection.
Public Transit
Mr. Speaker, it is the attitude that is the problem, and the Conservatives' stubbornness faced with this wonderful opportunity to help to finance TTC streetcars, which is a wonderful project. We simply cannot understand why they are refusing, unless of course, they are buying into the view of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that he does not want to create jobs on another continent. Thunder Bay is still in Canada. That is exactly where the announcement is going to be made today about the city and the province getting together to make this project happen.
We know the government is opposed to using FedNor to create jobs, but why is it refusing to support a project that will create jobs right here in Canada and help the environment at the same time?
Mr. Speaker, it has been the leader of the NDP who has been standing up in this place and asking for a buy Canadian policy. Seventy-five per cent of these streetcars are not made in Canada.
There are 3,700 municipalities in Canada. We have one program for all 3,700. Look at what one individual said: “There are important projects in my city that we did not submit because they weren't eligible. It's really unfair for any municipality that held back projects that didn't qualify”. Who said that? Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell.
Mr. Speaker, we can look forward to this summer, that is for sure. The jobless are going to get blue ribbons. We have a minister who uses crude epithets to insult cities and their citizens. We have a huge project that the federal government should be involved in that would create 6,000 jobs in Canada.
For heaven's sake, Ontario Premier McGuinty and Mayor Miller are doing their part. They are stepping forward and taking action. However, the government in a vote to be taken in just a little while in this place, supported by the Liberals, is going to stiff Toronto and leave it out of the economic--
Mr. Speaker, it would be the leader of the NDP who would be the first on his feet in one year's time wondering why our stimulus program had not created any jobs in Toronto.
We want to ensure that the people of Toronto play an active role in our job creation plan and the economic action plan. We have been there for Toronto over the past two years. We are supporting the Spadina subway expansion with more than 667 million federal dollars. We are supporting the renovations at Union Station, which is something that will go into the hundreds of millions of dollars. We have provided a third of a billion dollars for the Sheppard subway line. There is $500 million of federal-provincial money for GO Transit.
No government has been more supportive of public transit in the city of Toronto than this government.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Ronald Allen Smith is yet another Canadian who has been subject to the Conservatives' incoherent practice of picking and choosing which Canadians receive help abroad.
Now that the government has finally admitted it made a mistake in its handling of the Abdelrazik case despite a federal court ruling, will the Prime Minister now end his selective devaluation of Canadian citizenship abroad?
When will the Conservatives finally respect the law of the land, as ordered by the Federal Court of Canada, and resume its clemency-seeking policy for Ronald Allen Smith?
Mr. Speaker, to give a bit of background in this case, the lives of two young aboriginals were cut short by Ronald Allen Smith who marched them, literally, into the Montana forest and shot them in 1982.
That said, we have chosen not to appeal the Federal Court ruling. We are complying with the court ruling. I must admit as well that Mr. Smith has received, and will continue to receive, consular assistance.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem with the responses given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Monday and today. The government is picking and choosing among Canadian citizens. It will take action in certain cases, but in other cases, it will do nothing.
How can the government justify this discriminatory treatment of Canadians? Does the minister not realize that there is only one citizenship and one passport, and that the government has an obligation to all citizens?
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept my hon. colleague's premise. Our government respects the decisions made by sovereign, democratic states. We are determined to ensure that justice is served for Canadians abroad. In that regard, we will continue to study each instance on a case by case basis and, where appropriate, seek clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty abroad.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the way these cases are being handled poses some very serious questions about the positive obligations of the Canadian government.
I would like to ask the minister to turn his attention once again to the Abdelrazik case.
It is very clear from the information which has now been made public with respect to correspondence within the Government of Canada in 2006, that at that time, in 2006, it was a clear decision by the Government of Canada, in its discussions with the American government, that the Canadian government was ready to allow Mr. Abdelrazik to come back.
In light of the fact that it has now taken three years and a court case for that to happen, I would like to ask--
Cluster Munitions
Mr. Speaker, it has been over a decade since Canada led the way in the signing of the Ottawa treaty to ban landmines.
On May 30, 2008, last year, the Convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted at the UN, including by Canada.
The world needs to rid itself of cluster bombs, weapons that destroy many lives.
Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs commit Canada to be among the first 30 countries to ratify the convention, and if not, why not?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has played a leading role in the establishment and the implementation of the Ottawa convention on anti-personnel mines. Our government was also active in the negotiations of the new Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008 and was pleased to be among the 91 countries that signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions in December 2008.
Preparations are under way to seek ratification of this treaty. Ratification of protocol No. 4 of the convention, which addresses the explosive remnants of war, was approved by cabinet in November 2008. We intend to formally ratify the protocol in the future.
[Translation]
Gasoline Prices
Mr. Speaker, as citizens struggle to cope with the crisis, the Liberal-Conservative coalition is not even lifting a finger to deal with the rise in gasoline prices. On the contrary, the coalition is defending the tar sands and their friends, the oil companies, while consumers are stuck with the unjustifiable price hikes.
How many unjustifiable price hikes will consumers have to swallow before this government decides to give the Competition Bureau broader powers of investigation?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, of course, all consumers are concerned about gas prices. That is why this government, in our economic action plan and our budget, passed new rules and laws for the Competition Bureau to enforce. That will allow the Competition Bureau to have the tools that it needs to enforce our rules to ensure that there is better competition among the deliverers of gasoline and our gas stations and so forth. Those tools are available to the Competition Bureau. I am sure it will be using those tools at the earliest available opportunity.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry says that there is not a problem with the Competition Act. However, a CAA study shows that prices often rise just before holiday periods or long weekends. According to the CAA, there is no explanation for five out of seven recent price increases.
Can the minister explain then how, in the space of five minutes, the price can go up at four different gas stations on the four corners of the same intersection? Does he think that is normal?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, living as I do in Muskoka, I understand the member's frustration. We all have the same frustration as to how these things happen. Because of the Competition Bureau's actions in Quebec earlier last year, it found the chisellers, found the people who were colluding, and went after them like a ton of bricks. We have given it even more powers to do that because we believe in a fair marketplace and we believe in protecting consumers.
[Translation]
Death Penalty
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed this week that his party feels that the death penalty is acceptable. However, the minister said he wanted to decide on a case-by-case basis.
What is the difference between being put to death by lethal injection in the United States, shot in China and decapitated in Saudi Arabia? Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs realize that he will now be determining who lives and who dies?
Mr. Speaker, once again, this statement is completely out of proportion.
An individual who is judged in a democracy that subscribes to the rule of law should not necessarily expect the Canadian government to intercede on his behalf, especially when he has been found guilty of serious or violent crimes.
The strong measures the government has taken to combat violent crime in Canada are based on these Canadian values: respect for freedom, democracy, human rights—
Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the media are reporting the case of John Plecko, who was born in Croatia and came to Canada at the age of five. After living here for 40 years, he now faces the threat of deportation because neither he nor his parents applied for his Canadian citizenship. Although he has served time in prison in the past, he is now a law-abiding citizen who has married and had children.
The minister has discretionary authority and can cancel the deportation order on humanitarian grounds. Will he do so?
[English]
Medical Isotopes
Mr. Speaker, the MAPLE team leader, Dr. Harold Smith, and three other nuclear scientists told the natural resources committee yesterday that abandoning the MAPLEs would be a tragic loss of scientific and engineering accomplishment, similar to Mr. Diefenbaker's decision to cancel the Avro Arrow. Medical leaders have called this decision a “horribly short-sighted” decision that makes no sense.
Will the government recognize that it is making a catastrophic mistake and work with the National Academy of Sciences and other experts to keep isotope production in Canada where it belongs?
Mr. Speaker, as I announced earlier, we have now populated the expert review panel and it is actually going to be taking a look at all the options in order to have a steady, reliable supply of medical isotopes for Canadians in the long-term. We truly understand that this is a very serious concern for all of us in the long-term.
As well, it is important to make a clarification regarding the MAPLEs. Once again I have to stress, that after 12 years, after over half a billion dollars, not a single usable medical isotope was produced, and the reason why is that they could not operate safely.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would like to listen to the engineers who worked on the project. This is what they had to say. They said that the reactors were only four months away from being able to effectively produce medical isotopes and that just one of these generators would have been able to produce the entire world's supply.
The government has a solution at its fingertips. Will the government work with the National Academy of Sciences and other nuclear scientists to get the MAPLE reactors up and running, to effectively and safely produce isotopes?
Mr. Speaker, in this country there is a division of power between those who build and operate nuclear reactors and those who licence them in terms of safety. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission indicated to AECL that this was not a licensable reactor. In fact, in 2001, Ms. Linda Keen, who was the president of the CNSC, indicated that it was an inherently flawed design.
That being said, we understand the issue and we are taking action. We have an expert panel in place that will review the way to ensure Canadians actually get medical isotopes.
Social Programs
Mr. Speaker, today I sent a letter to the Auditor General, requesting an inquiry into the enabling accessibility fund.
There are too many troubling questions surrounding this program, including the fact that of $36 million allocated, $34 million went to ridings held by Conservatives, and the fact that of 89 applications for major funding, only 2 were approved, both to Conservative ridings, including $15 million to the riding of the Minister of Finance, who once sat on the board approving project applications.
If there is nothing to hide, will she release all relevant information pertaining to the application process?
Mr. Speaker, the enabling accessibility fund is a great program. It is great because it particularly helps small communities get the facilities, make them accessible, and provide services to the disabled, something that the previous Liberal government could not be bothered with.
This is a great program. We are very pleased that the projects were value-based on their merit. We are going forward with it. It is a good program. I am surprised that the hon. member thinks that the program that was funded in his riding was not worthy.
Mr. Speaker, it may be a great project if one lives in a Conservative-held riding, but there are people with disabilities who live across this country who are being shut out of the process.
This fund was supposed to help persons with disabilities throughout Canada, not just in Conservative ridings. All these unanswered questions suggest the fund was created to help Conservatives and also suggest serious political interference, including the $15 million sent to the riding of the finance minister.
Will the minister do the right thing and release all information about this program, or will she admit that this has become a political slush fund?
Mr. Speaker, we are helping the disabled get access to facilities to which they never had access before. That is a noble thing. We are very proud of that. A number of groups were not able to get funding because the program was so popular. It was over-subscribed.
I would note that one program that was funded was in that Liberal member's riding, the Iona Presbyterian Church in Dartmouth. Is he saying that is a Conservative riding? It should be.
Justice
Mr. Speaker, our government has taken real action to combat crime and to punish sex offenders. We introduced a bill earlier this month that would fix the Liberal's national sex offender registry that experts say has never solved a single crime.
There is an additional strain on the laboratories that analyze DNA. We must ensure that the strong laws we have brought forth are able to catch sex offenders and other criminals.
Could the Minister of Public Safety outline our government's plans to give these labs the funding they need?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Surrey North for all her outstanding work on justice issues.
She is quite correct that we are the only party that has taken real action to tackle crime. The use of DNA analysis by our police is important in solving crimes, and ensuring offenders are off our streets and in prison where they belong.
That is why our government put an additional $32 million into our RCMP forensic laboratories to do exactly this kind of DNA work. Our government is serious about tackling crime. This means giving law enforcement the tools it needs to get the job done and keep Canada safe.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, a secret document from the Privy Council Office indicates that in 2006 officials from the Bush administration were contacting our ministers directly to provoke suspicions against Canadian citizen Abdelrazik and to request Canada's help in putting together a criminal case against him.
Clearly, many questions need to be answered regarding the role of the previous Liberal government and the present Conservative government.
Will the government hold a public inquiry into the case of Mr. Abdelrazik, so that Canadians can finally learn the truth about Canada's involvement in this case, yes or no?
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, Canada helped to create the Montreux document outlining obligations under international law and best practices for the use of private military and security contractors. Yet, the government is not forthcoming when questioned about what steps have been taken to comply with this document in Afghanistan.
We understand that Afghan civilian guards are provided weapons only while on duty, with an uncertain level of training, and soldiers have complained of guards sleeping on the job.
Will the government commit to greater openness on this topic and issue a public report outlining how we are meeting our obligations under the Montreux document?
Mr. Speaker, local Afghans are hired to provide security at specific Canadian Forces installations and are undertaking these duties under the training and supervision of the CF after being appropriately trained by Canadian Forces personnel. Weapons are collected and secured when not in use and never leave the CF installation.
Canada employs these personnel in a manner consistent with its international legal obligations. As Major Steve Jourdain said recently:
| It definitely gives us flexibility. If it was not for the private security, it would not be possible for me to do the next operation. |
[Translation]
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, farmers are truly being ill served by this Liberal-Conservative coalition. The real Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is mum, while the Minister of State for Agriculture, when asked about the “Product of Canada” label and the 98% standard, says that he is holding more meetings.
Why did the minister not follow the recommendations of producers, processors, consumers and his own officials, who all said that the 98% standard was ridiculous and inappropriate?
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been present in this House for 18 years. During that time, it could have met with food processors in Canada, but it has never held such a meeting—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order, please. The hon. Minister of National Revenue has the floor, and we need to hear what he is saying. He has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, in its 18 years in this House, the Bloc Québécois has never delivered the goods. It could have met with processors, but it never has.
I have been Minister of State for Agriculture for just a few months, but last week, I met with about 30 representatives of various food processors. They talked about product labelling, and we are going to continue to move ahead.
Mr. Speaker, in a few months, he has proven that he could not care less.
The Canada-U.S. agreement on organic products will take effect on June 30. This agreement provides for less stringent organic standards than the ones already in place in Quebec, which says to producers that Quebec products will face unfair competition in their own market.
How can the Minister of State for Agriculture justify taking a stand in favour of foreign producers at the expense of producers in Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, once again, these people are not familiar with this issue. We have signed an agreement with the United States so that we can have greater access to the U.S. market. American producers must meet Canadian standards for organic products. For example, to sell their products here, American producers cannot use sodium nitrate and similar compounds. There are three variants covered by our standards.
We export $60 million worth of products to the United States, and its exports to Canada are worth $700 million. Our efforts are opening up a huge market.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the government continues to fail Canada's hog producers. Another week and more families are driven out of business.
With cash denied, will the minister change the reference margin to include CAIS payments so as to deliver immediate cash?
Nieuwland Feed and Supply, in a request to the government said, “Governments can react quickly with large dollar bailouts to the auto industry. Now that same speed is needed to keep the pork industry from collapse and is needed straight away”.
Previous governments have acted. Will the minister act and act today?
Mr. Speaker, we continue to work with the pork sector at all levels.
We have had meetings as late as last night, working forward on these projects within the existing program. I would advise the member to go home, begin to enjoy his holidays, sit tight, and we will look after the agricultural sector far better than his government ever did.
Mr. Speaker, the existing programs do not work, and the minister knows it.
Pork producers have no cash, no credit, no feed and a government in denial. Now added to that problem is a western Canadian drought that has unbelievable damaging conditions. On weather disasters, P.E.I. producers have found that the government's agri-recovery program is itself an abject failure.
Will the minister at least deliver real disaster assistance and not convoluted programs that offer no hope?
Mr. Speaker, I guess the first thing I would say is that the constituents of Malpeque could hope for better representation.
We have put together a program for the potato sector in Prince Edward Island. It will deliver some $12 million in the next days and weeks. We are doing the same thing with the drought sector in western Saskatchewan and Alberta.
What we are finding is that the crop insurance program is the first line of defence. Of course, that is provincially outlined. We are working with them to further those programs. We have agri-stability and the cash advances on that program. We also have the third pillar in agri-recovery, which will look after a region that is affected by flood or by drought. They are well covered.
Mr. Speaker, we need confirmation that this aid is going to come immediately and not months down the road.
That is the problem that we are facing today. It is going to be a long, dry summer for farmers in western Canada. Grain producers are watching their crops die in the fields. Cattle producers are looking at dried-up water holes and pasture land. Groundwater sources are almost gone.
Farmers are not only asking where the rain is, but where is the government? Will the government provide the funds that western farmers need to get through this drought and ensure that aid programs have the staff and resources to get claims processed quickly?
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the NDP to the agricultural file at the end of the day. That said, as I outlined for the member for Malpeque, the programs are there, the programs work and there are cash advances on the programs.
We also have the other cash advance program now, by which we can lend up to $400,000, with the first $100,000 interest free. That can be triggered at any time.
We have termed out some of those repayment situations so that farmers maintain the liquidity to work themselves through this.
We have the staff in place. We have the programs in place. Farmers are well served by the government.
Aboriginal Affairs
Mr. Speaker, three chiefs in my region of northern Manitoba came to Ottawa this week and were able to have a meeting with the Minister of Health and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, the chiefs drew attention to the appalling living conditions in first nations communities.
I would like to note that we demanded many times for this meeting. This is a crisis that these people are facing in their communities.
While this meeting was extremely important, what we really want to see is an immediate plan of action.
One of the things these chiefs proposed was the need for a field hospital. It takes 15 hours on average to get a medevac to a community that is one hour away from Winnipeg.
Why can these people, these first nations, not receive the immediate health care services they need?
Mr. Speaker, in February I met with all the chiefs in Manitoba to discuss many issues related to the delivery of health care in their communities.
This week I also met with them to discuss the H1N1 situation. I also had a meeting with the health minister from the province yesterday.
Again, we are doing everything for the community to respond to the situation with H1N1. Additional staff are there. We have the supplies in the community, and we will continue to provide the services to the residents of those communities.
[Translation]
Education
Mr. Speaker, for 13 long years, the Liberals abandoned Quebec's colleges, universities and CEGEPs. During that time, as is their habit and as they are doing this morning, the Bloc members complained but did nothing for Quebec.
Once again, they will sit on their hands today while Conservative members from Quebec stand up for Quebec.
I would like to know what our Minister of Public Works and our Conservative government is doing for our colleges?
Mr. Speaker, our dilapidated infrastructure is the result of our predecessors' inaction. Fortunately, this morning we announced $394 million for infrastructure and 207 projects throughout Quebec. That will generate about $1 billion in investments across Quebec.
This money has been made available through the economic action plan. The NDP voted against it. The Bloc Québécois voted against it. The Bloc wants to block everything. It looks for crises. It voted against Quebec's colleges and universities. That is deplorable.
[English]
Presence in Gallery
Earlier, several eloquent statements by members paid tribute to a great Canadian who is with us today. However, I must remind the House that television is a visual medium and that in order to get the shot of him in the gallery today, it is the Chair who must draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Don Newman, who retires today after a long and distinguished career. He will be sorely missed.
[Translation]
On behalf of all members, I pay tribute to him and congratulate him on his illustrious career.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
[English]
Strategic Outlook for the 40th Parliament
Parliamentary Delegation Visit to Finland
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I am pleased to table in the House of Commons the response of the government of Canada to the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, entitled “Chapter 5—Managing the Delivery of Legal Services to Government—Department of Justice Canada”, of the May 2007 report of the Auditor General of Canada, tabled in the House on February 25, 2009.
This report was previously tabled as the 17th report in the second session of the 39th Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons and on behalf of the Government of Canada I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the recommendations contained in the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, entitled “Military Health Care—National Defence”.
[Translation]
International Tropical Timber Agreement, 2006
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
[Translation]
Interparliamentary Delegations
Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to table.
Pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) concerning its participation in the 119th IPU assembly and related meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, from October 13 to 15, 2008, and of the Canadian Group of the IPU's participation at the conference entitled “Informing democracy: building capacity to meet parliamentarians’ information and knowledge needs” in Geneva, Switzerland, on October 16, 2008.
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I would also like to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union concerning its participation in the annual 2008 session of the parliamentary conference on the World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, from September 8 to 10, 2008.
[English]
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation of the Canadian section of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas, or FIPA, respecting its participation in a trade knowledge workshop and bilateral visit, held in Lima, Peru, from March 23 to 27, 2009.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports of the Canadian delegations of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group concerning its participation in the Border Trade Alliance international conference--New Administration, New Border Policy, held in Washington, D.C., from April 19 to 21, 2009.
[English]
Committees of the House
Foreign Affairs and International Development
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development entitled, “Canada-U.S. Relations: Old Challenges, New Opportunities”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I am presenting the 17th report, “Chapter 1, National Security: Intelligence and Information Sharing of the 2009 Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada”.
The second is the 18th report on “Chapter 4, Managing Risks to Canada's Plant Resources--Canadian Food Inspection Agency” of the December 2008 Report of the Auditor General of Canada”.
[Translation]
[English]
Purple Day Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-430, An Act respecting a day to increase public awareness about epilepsy.
He said: Madam Speaker, allow me to thank my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for seconding this bill. It is very appropriate to have a physician as the seconder as the bill deals with epilepsy.
On March 26, I was very pleased when so many members wore purple. I know the private member's bill I am introducing today will be received in that same spirit. This bill would declare March 26 Purple Day in recognition of epilepsy awareness.
Purple Day was founded in 2008 by nine-year-old Cassidy Megan, who lives in my riding of Halifax West. Purple Day is a grassroots effort dedicated to increasing awareness about epilepsy worldwide.
As I noted, on March 26 of this year people from around the globe, including members of the House, wore purple to spread the word about epilepsy. Epilepsy affects over 50 million people worldwide. That is more than multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy and Parkinson's disease combined. This bill would enshrine March 26 in law as the day each year when we Canadians would wear purple to raise awareness of epilepsy.
This bill would not be possible without the efforts of Cassidy. I know I speak for all members of the House when I thank her for her leadership and courage in the fight to raise epilepsy awareness. I look forward to the passage of this bill and the celebration of Purple Day in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-431, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Oak Ridges—Markham.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is a simple bill. It changes the name of my riding to include the historical towns of King and Stouffville which were left out of the name of my riding when it was created in 2004. The two mayors and many citizens of both areas have long been calling for this change.
It is Canada's most beautiful riding. It is also Canada's largest riding in terms of population. The name, while recognizing the urban south of the riding, mainly Markham and Oak Ridges, ignored the important rural portion of the riding, which is Whitchurch, Stouffville and King. With this name change, it would make it easier for me and the two communities to market the communities throughout Canada and around the world.
I look forward to finally including King and Stouffville in the name of my great riding and being able to call it the great riding of Markham—Stouffville—Oak Ridges—King.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Motor Vehicle Safety Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-432, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (brake pads).
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce this private member's bill on brake pads. The bill amends the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to protect the manufacturing or importation of brake pads for installation on passenger cars unless the brake pads meet the standard established by the recommended practice of the Society of Automotive Engineers.
It is imperative that after-market brake pads meet acceptable safety standards. I believe this bill is a step forward to address the problem of shoddy brake pads and I ask for the support of the House for this private member's bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-433, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (appeals).
She said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to introduce this bill which takes a step toward ending the systemic discrimination against persons living with disabilities that now exists within our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
I want to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for seconding the bill and also for his ongoing work in helping people with disabilities overcome such discrimination.
The act currently prohibits on a regular basis people living with disabilities to become immigrants. It suggests that those with disabilities impose some sort of excessive demand on our society which by its very nature is inherently discriminatory.
This bill simply says there should be an appeal for people living with a disability who have applied for immigration but have been turned down to appeal that decision and to prove that they have abilities that ought to be recognized and that in fact they will not pose an excessive demand on our society.
Even though Canada signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, applicants themselves are living with certain disabilities or family members with disabilities currently can be turned away without any appeal process. This bill allows for an appeal process that would give these applicants a chance to show that their abilities outweigh our prejudices.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Food and Drugs Act
moved that Bill S-208, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (clean drinking water), be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
Committees of the House
Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Madam Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following travel motion. I move:
| That, in relation to its study of high speed rail in Canada, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be authorized to travel to Washington, District of Columbia and New York City, New York, in September 2009 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee. |
Madam Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties on the following motion. I move:
| That, at any time the House stands adjourned during June 2009 and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has ready a report, when that report is deposited with the Clerk of the House, it shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House. |
His Highness The Aga Khan
Madam Speaker, I have the distinct pleasure and privilege of rising to present the following motion. There have been consultations between all parties. I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
| THAT, Whereas His Highness the Aga Khan, leader of the worldwide Ismaili Muslim Community, is a beacon of humanitarianism, pluralism and tolerance throughout the world; |
| Whereas in addition to the spiritual leadership he provides to the worldwide Ismaili community, the Aga Khan is also actively involved in humanitarian and development projects throughout Asia and Africa; |
| Whereas Canadians are grateful for the Aga Khan's efforts in Afghanistan where today The Aga Khan Development Network is a vital partner in our efforts to secure and improve the lives of Afghan citizens; |
| Whereas Canada is proud to have partnered with the Aga Khan to build the Global Centre for Pluralism in Ottawa which will promote ethnic, cultural and religious tolerance in Canada and worldwide; |
| Whereas Canada has previously acknowledged the contributions of other leading champions of human dignity, by granting them honorary Canadian citizenship; |
| Therefore, this House resolves to bestow the title “honorary Canadian citizen” on His Highness the Aga Khan. |
Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Petitions
Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition to abolish the long gun registry immediately. The petition states that the long gun registry has wasted over $2 billion of public money and that criminals do not register their guns. It also states that the enactment of the long gun registry has led to the harassment of farmers, hunters, lawful gun owners, and there is scant evidence that this boondoggle has protected any lives at all. Thus, I present this petition and join with my constituents in supporting the abolition of the long gun registry.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table yet another petition signed by hundreds more people urging Parliament to immediately pass my Bill C-378, to allow hard-working families to access the maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits without worrying that if they lose their job in the meantime, they would also lose their EI.
The petitioners note that one of the barriers preventing workers from accessing EI are the anti-stacking provisions found within the Employment Insurance Act. These discriminatory provisions prevent new mothers in particular who have secured the full amount of special benefit entitlements from accessing regular benefits if they lose their jobs during or shortly after these specially sanctioned leaves.
Madam Speaker, I wonder if it would be in order for me to seek unanimous consent so that the other members who are also seeking to table petitions today might be able to do so even if the time provided for presenting petitions expires prior to that.
Madam Speaker, in the absence of independent science-based studies on the long-term effects on the health of residents and wildlife of Renfrew County because of the close proximity of wind turbines, the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject any funding applications for federal government assistance for the erection of wind towers in Renfrew County until such time as it can be demonstrated that all reasonable concerns regarding health, safety, planning, taxes, assessment, legal rights and environmental impact the construction of wind towers will have on the people of Renfrew County have been addressed.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, this petition, containing hundreds of signatures, is calling on the federal government to do three things.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to make employment insurance sickness benefits more flexible so that people with episodic disabilities can work part time and receive benefits on a part-time basis.
Second, they are calling on Parliament to make the disability tax credit refundable, in order to increase income.
Third, the petitioners want the government to allow spouses to claim the caregiver tax credit.
In closing, I wish everyone a good summer.
[English]
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, despite what my hon. colleague from the NDP said, which was a very gracious offer to get all the petitions in before we rise for the summer, I do have, in routine proceedings, a number of questions, which must be tabled today.
Today is the deadline, so I would ask for the consent of the House, at approximately one or two minutes before 1 p.m., at which time we will break to go into votes, if we could revert to the questions on the order paper portion, so I will be able to table these before the end of this session.
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition is sponsored by We Are Change Vancouver and warcriminalsout.ca
The petitioners call upon the government to abide by its own laws, publicly stated policies and binding international agreements pertaining to war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the Geneva conventions and the Nuremberg charter, and either.
They petition to ban or deny entry to George W. Bush and members of the Bush administration, whom they believe are credibly accused of torture and other war crimes.
Madam Speaker, the second petition contains 55 pages signed by folks in east Vancouver.
The petitioners want to draw to our attention that Vancouver's Chinatown has been a vibrant hub for commercial, social and cultural activities in the Chinese community since the 19th century. The area has significant buildings of historical and cultural value, which reflect the social environment and the history of Chinese migration to Canada and the history of Vancouver.
They call upon the Government of Canada to preserve the rich legacy of Vancouver's Chinatown and to designate Chinatown as a national historic site.
Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present two different petitions from constituents of my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, as well as a number from the Hamilton, Burlington and Oakville areas.
The petitioners point out that life should be protected until natural death occurs and that predators encourage and assist suicide through the Internet.
They call upon government to enable prosecution of those who assist, facilitate, encourage or advise someone in taking his or her own life by updating the Canadian Criminal Code to reflect the new realities of 21st century broadband access.
Madam Speaker, I have, for tabling, a petition signed by many Canadians, calling for amendments to various acts and regulations regarding animal transport.
It is shameful that in an advanced country such as Canada, acts of cruelty to animals still occur. Cattle, sheep and goats can be transported for 52 hours without access to water and food. Pigs, poultry and horses can be transported for 36 hours without access to water and food.
These are the longest animal transport times in the industrialized world. The petitioners want change.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise here today to present a petition signed by over 100 students from the École internationale St-Edmond in Greenfield Park and the École primaire des Quatre-saisons in Saint-Hubert. These young people are concerned about the environment. Their petition reads as follows:
| We, the undersigned petitioners, are calling on the government to hear what our young voices have to say, and to take concrete, immediate action in order to make responsible policy decisions to leave an environmental legacy that is sustainable for future generations. It is extremely urgent. |
[English]
Social Sciences and Humanities
Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand here with the signatures of over 17,000 students, researchers, academics and concerned individuals, people from coast to coast and around the world.
The petitioners are protesting the budget in 2009 that notes a focus on only business-related research when it comes to new funding for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. While recognizing the importance of supporting all areas of research, they are concerned about the government's attack on the social sciences and humanities and fundamentally the attack on academic freedom.
Studies in the social sciences have helped build our country and improve the world in the areas of social justice, civic and economic empowerment and how we can improve our lives. At a time when the world is looking ahead and thinking outside of the box, the government is stunting our research community and turning it back.
These Canadians demand that the government listen, revert its decision and support the social sciences and humanities in Canada.
Madam Speaker, I put forward this petition which calls upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.
The petition is supported by a record number of Canadians, 12,000 of them, who showed up on the Hill in the month of May for the March of Life. The petitioners have asked the House of Commons to pass the same type of legislation.
Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of the members of the Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association, a large of number who live and work in my riding of Willowdale. The petition is entitled “Say No To Contraband Tobacco”.
The petitioners state that the illicit tobacco trade presents a serious threat to public safety in Canada and that profits from illegal tobacco products fund other criminal activities, such as drug and gun trafficking. The rise of organized criminal activity in the contraband tobacco market threatens the safety of all Canadians. These cheap, easily accessible and untaxed contraband cigarettes are widespread among youth. For small family-run convenience stores, contraband tobacco is the number one enemy facing them. Convenience stores get more than 50% of their sales from legal sale of tobacco and their sale of tobacco has been decreased rapidly for last few years due to contraband tobacco. Market share of contraband tobacco in Ontario is estimated as 35% and increasing at an alarming rate.
The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to fight against illicit tobacco vigorously and continuously.
Madam Speaker, I have two sets of petitions to present today.
The first set consists of two petitions, one from south Vancouver Island, Victoria, Esquimalt and Saanich, and a second set of petitions from north Vancouver Island, the ridings of Vancouver Island North and Nanaimo—Alberni.
Hundreds of people in those areas of Vancouver Island request that the Minister of Fisheries look at the halibut allocation policy. They believe there needs to be a viable allocation framework for halibut in British Columbia, which guarantees sustainable economic benefits and compensation for the transfer of fishing quotas to the public.
As members know, the NDP has been calling for a fisheries summit on the halibut allocation issue in British Columbia.
Madam Speaker, the second set of petitions is from Markham and Newmarket and the Finch Avenue area of Toronto.
Hundreds of Canadians ask that the Government of Canada use every diplomatic means at its disposal to bring about peace and respect for human rights for the Tamil population of northern Sri Lanka.
Madam Speaker, the member who spoke before me mentioned the 12,000 Canadians who were on the Hill recently for the March for Life.
I also have a petition from some 475 people from my riding and from other parts of Vancouver Island and Canada. The petitioners call upon Parliament to recognize that people have a right to life. They draw to the attention of Parliament that since 1988 Canada has had no law regarding abortion at all.
They call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.
Madam Speaker, I have a well-prepared petition from residents of York South—Weston entitled, “Fix Employment Insurance Now”.
The petitioners state that a healthy unemployment system is the most powerful of all economic stabilizers and that we have entered this new economic crisis with a much weaker EI system.
Therefore, they urgently petition Parliament to introduce these changes to employment insurance: 360 hours to qualify for EI benefits in all regions of Canada; increase benefit duration to 50 weeks for all workers in all regions; and increase benefits to at least 60% of normal earnings using workers' 12 best weeks.
Since there has been a special committee put together to look at this, I would urge that not only Parliament consider this through the RSD committee, but also that it be referred on to the special committee that will be meeting during the summer to look at fixing employment insurance.
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions I would like to present today.
The first petition is signed by a number of Canadians who are concerned about the current events in the Democratic Republic of Congo and what they see as a lack of involvement on the part of our government.
The petitioners call upon the House to respond to the immediate humanitarian needs of victims of the crisis, using funds from CIDA's fragile states and countries experiencing humanitarian crisis program. They would like to see the mandate and the resources of the UN mission in Congo strengthened.
The petitioners call upon the UN to relaunch the work of its panel on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the DRC.
The signatories to this petition have taken the time to add their name and express support for this cause, and I trust the government will include their voices in its consideration of this issue.
Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by religious leaders from St. John's and Marystown, Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as citizens of Nova Scotia.
The petitioners call for swift passage of Bill C-304 put forward by the member for Vancouver East.
Bill C-304 would mandate the government to create a national housing strategy that would, in consultation with first nations, harmonize the work of all levels of government to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for all Canadians.
The petitioners call for an increased federal role in housing through investments in not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless, access to housing for those with different needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities, and sustainable and environmentally sound design standards.
They ask that Parliament pass the bill when it returns to the House in the fall, a bill to address the ongoing crisis in our country.
Both the petitioners and I look forward to the government's response.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present 25 petitions signed by over 1,300 people residing within and around the constituency of Prince Albert.
The signatories believe that the long gun registry is not working because it targets hunters and farmers and that criminals should be targeted in the fight against violent crime, not law-abiding citizens.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to expedite legislation, which would finally put to an end to the long gun registry.
Madam Speaker, I stand in the House today to present a petition for the Minister of Canadian Heritage from residents of the Northwest Territories, particularly residents of Yellowknife, which celebrates its 75th anniversary next week, and I congratulate it on that.
The petitioners wish to draw the government's attention to the fact that CBC Radio-Canada employees are facing job losses and that its stations are facing closures.
They request that the Government of Canada give additional funding to CBC Radio-Canada and include CBC Radio-Canada as part of the government's economic stimulus plan.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in the House today signed by constituents in my riding and Canadians from across the country. The petition supports the thousands of people who were on the Hill not very long ago for the March for Life.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.
Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House today signed by constituents in my riding and Canadians from across the country regarding the situation in Sudan.
The petitioners call upon the Canadian government to pursue targeted divestment from Sudan conditional upon the Sudanese government's cessation of the atrocities in Darfur, engage in the peace process, appoint a special envoy to the region, engage more actively in multilateral diplomacy at the UN., bring the Darfur issue to the international stage and rally greater international support for conflict resolution efforts.
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition is with regard to medical EI benefits. The petitioners draw to the attention of the government to the fact that a number of severe, potentially life-threatening conditions do not qualify for disability programs because they are not necessarily permanent.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to enact legislation to provide additional medical EI benefits equal to maternity EI benefits.
Madam Speaker, the second petition is another petition on the gun registry, which has spiralled out of control to an estimated $2 billion a decade later and has not saved one single life since it was introduced.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support and pass any legislation that would cancel the Canadian long gun registry.
Madam Speaker, I stand today to represent again 850 fishers from Newfoundland and Labrador who have been treated unfairly by Revenue Canada. They were charged 100% tax on the proceeds that they received from the retirement of their licence when they should have only been charged 25%. They have proof that 150 fishers were charged 25%.
The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to recognize this unfairness and to correct this injustice.
Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by thousands of Canadians who point out that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known.
They point out that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial diseases combined yet Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world. They also point out that Canada spends millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry but also blocking international efforts to curb its use.
The petitioners call upon the government to ban asbestos; to institute a just transition program for any workers who may be affected; to end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad; and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.
Madam Speaker, the second petition concerns the conflict in Sri Lanka.
It calls upon Parliament to intervene immediately to stop the war; urge the resumption of peaceful negotiations; lift the embargo of essential items to the Tamil areas; and urge the Sri Lankan government to allow NGOs, independent media and a UN human rights monitoring mission into Sri Lanka.
Madam Speaker, in Sri Lanka, over 250,000 internally displaced persons are still being kept in government-run camps.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to use every diplomatic means at its disposal to restore the freedom of movement for the UN and international aid organizations throughout the whole of Sri Lanka and begin the process of working toward a lasting peace and reconciliation between the government and the Tamil Tigers that will see full respect of the human rights of all Sri Lankans.
The Sri Lankan government must move faster to allow freedom of movement for the internally displaced persons in camps and prevent them from becoming internment facilities. The United Nations is now more concerned over the issue of freedom of movement than living conditions in the camps, which seem to be improving every day. It is time for Parliament to insist that the Sri Lankan authorities lift restrictions on humanitarian organizations and allow them to access the internally displaced persons who need them desperately.
Questions on the Order Paper
[Text]
Has the government issued any press releases, statements or speeches, with regards to the recent review, chaired by Mount Allison University President, Robert Campbell, prepared for the government, suggesting that Canada Post should drop door-to-door mail delivery and switch to community mailboxes and, if so, where can they be accessed?
Hon. Rob Merrifield (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 2009, the report of the advisory panel was tabled in the House of Commons and a news release was issued the same day announcing that the report is available to the public in both official languages. The press release is available at http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/nat/2009/09-h064e.htm.
While door-to-door service delivery was discussed in the report, the advisory panel did not recommend a switch from door-to-door mail delivery to community mailboxes.
Canada Post is an important federal institution that provides a fundamental public service to Canadians and the government is committed to making sure that all Canadians, rural and urban, continue to have a universal, effective and economically viable postal service.
With regard to the financial literacy initiatives announced in Budget 2009: (a) what programs have been created; (b) how much funding has the government allocated for each of these programs; (c) how much funding has been spent, to date, on these programs; (d) what section of the Canadian population is each program targeting; (e) what area of the country is each program going to operate in; and (f) how will each program help make Canadians more financially literate?
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a number of initiatives are currently underway to improve financial literacy for Canadians; however, our government believed it was time to better organize efforts. To that effect, budget 2009, presented to the House of Commons on January 27, 2009, committed $5 million over two years, 2009-10 and 2010-11, to establish an independent task force.
This task force will make recommendations to the Minister of Finance on a cohesive national strategy on financial literacy, and include representatives of the business and education sectors, volunteer organizations, and academics, and will be supported by a federal secretariat. The task force is expected to be launched in the spring of 2009.
With respect to how improving financial literacy will help Canadians, our government believes that financial literacy is an important life skill that empowers consumers to make the best financial decisions in their particular circumstances. Increased financial literacy allows consumers to act knowledgeably and with confidence to look after their own best interest and achieve their personal and financial goals.
Individuals like John Hope Bryant, founder, chairman and CEO of Operation HOPE, Inc. and vice-chairman of the United States President Barack Obama's Advisory Committee on Financial Literacy and Peter Nares, founder and executive director of Social and Enterprise Development Innovations, SEDI, have publicly echoed that sentiment and applauded our government’s initiatives in that regard, declaring that: “Financial literacy entails developing skill sets people will use every day to make better decisions … (the Conservative) government has taken some important steps in this direction. In 2007, (the) government mandated that the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada begin addressing financial literacy matters. Funding was provided in the subsequent federal budgets. However, in fiscal 2009, the Canadian government has the opportunity to grab hold of this issue as our major trading partners have done. The commitment to form an independent, multi-sector task force to develop a national strategy on financial literacy is the first step in a process that could help Canadians make better financial decisions. It could also help Canadians better weather the economic storms that will inevitably blow through the global economy from time to time”.
With regards to the Public Sector Pension Investment Board: (a) what are the private market benchmarks used by the Board and in what way do they reflect the underlying credit risk, liquidity risk, leverage and beta of the underlying investments; (b) does the Board invest in hedge funds and, if so, (i) what are the Board’s benchmarks for these hedge funds, (ii) how do the benchmarks accurately reflect the underlying credit risk, liquidity risk, leverage and beta of the underlying investments; (c) who is the officer responsible for the policy portfolio; (d) what is the total active risk the board is allowed to take and how is this risk monitored; (e) what is the risk management policy to deal with portfolios that are losing money; (f) are there steps to cut losses in public markets when they reach a certain level, and how are they made clear; (g) what are the detailed policies for (i) mitigating the risks of private markets, (ii) whistleblower protection, (iii) compliance with diversity laws; (h) what has been the turnover in funds of the last four fiscal years; and (j) has the board been audited or evaluated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission?
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, CPPIB, was established by an act of Parliament in 1997. The mandate of the board is to invest the funds transferred by the CPP in the best interests of CPP plan members, maximizing the rate of return without undue risk of loss. All changes to the CPP require the approval of at least two-thirds of the provinces representing at least two-thirds of the population, plus the federal government.
It should be noted that the CPPIB is neither a department nor an agency of the Crown; rather it is governed by a board of directors of twelve experienced professionals who are appointed by the federal government in consultation with provinces, operating at arm's length from the government. The board is required to be accountable to Canadians, Parliament, and the provinces through regular reports of its activities and the results achieved.
To that effect, the CPPIB recently released its annual report on May 28, 2009 which responds to many questions. The report is available at http://www.cppib.ca/Publications/annual_report.html. Also, a copy of CPPIB code of conduct is available at http://www.cppib.ca/files/PDF/Code_Of_Conduct_Oct01_2008.pdf.
With respect to federally regulated pension plans: (a) how many such plans are currently at risk of default and which plans are so affected; (b) what is the value of each affected plan, how many current and future pensioners does each pension have and what is the average annual amount each pensioner, current and future, would lose in the event of default; (c) what is the government’s position on protecting existing pension benefits in the event of bankruptcy; and (d) does the government support efforts to guarantee pension benefits in the event of bankruptcy and if, so, how?
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, according to the latest available pension plan financial statements, www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/reports/osfi/ar0708_e.pdf, there were 1,350 private pension plans registered under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, PBSA, and supervised by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI). Of those plans, there were 351 defined benefit plans, 904 defined contribution plans and 95 combination plans. These plans covered over 594,000 members, of which 391,000 were in a defined benefit plan, 104,000 in a defined contribution plan and 99,000 in a combination plan. Total assets for these plans were $132 billion, with $109 billion in defined benefit plans, $4 billion in defined contribution plans and $19 billion in combination plans. OSFI regulates approximately 7 percent of pension plans in Canada. The other 93 percent are under provincial regulation, representing 5.2 million members with total assets of $961 billion. 53 percent of federally regulated pension plan assets were invested in equities, 39 percent in debt instruments and 8 percent in diversified and other assets.
In April 2009, OSFI reported, www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/media/nr_esr_e.pdf, that the average estimated solvency ratio for federally regulated defined benefit plans was 0.85 in December 2008. Estimated solvency ratios are determined by dividing a plan’s estimated assets by the plan’s estimated liabilities, using assumptions consistent with the plan being terminated. OSFI continues to monitor the funding situation of plans carefully and is taking steps, where necessary, to protect the rights and interests of plan beneficiaries.
The government has taken action to better protect the pensions of working Canadians by making amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act that will grant super priority status to outstanding employer and employee pension contributions in both bankruptcy and corporate restructuring. This super-priority status became law in bankruptcy in July 2008.
Given the present extraordinary circumstances affecting private pension plans, the Government took action in Budget 2009, presented to the House of Commons on January 27, 2009, and the 2008 Economic and Fiscal Statement by providing temporary solvency funding relief that will facilitate an orderly return to full funding while protecting the security of benefits. The regulations implementing this temporary relief were pre-published in the Canada Gazette on April 4th.
The federal government also launched public consultations on pension issues in January with the release of a consultation paper (http://www.fin.gc.ca/n08/09-005-eng.asp). As part of the consultation process, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance led public meetings across Canada in March and April. To become better familiarized with this consultation process, please visit http://www.fin.gc.ca/n08/09-018-eng.asp
Regarding regulations on mercury: (a) what progress has the government made on the development of new regulations to reduce mercury emissions from coal fired electric power generation; and (b) when, specifically, is the government going to issue new regulations on mercury emissions from coal fired electric power generation?
Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in response to a) Canada has reduced its mercury emissions by 90% since the 1970s and now accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. Despite this progress, we need to continue taking action because mercury impacts are still evident across the country.
The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of addressing mercury emissions from coal-fired electricity generation as it is the largest contributor to mercury emissions in Canada at 36%.
Under “Turning the Corner”, the government announced its intention to regulate key sources of air pollutant emissions. We are working with industry, provinces and non-government organizations to refine the regulatory framework and specifically to develop national regulations of industrial emissions of key air pollutants. As part of that work, a Canadian regulation addressing mercury from the electricity sector under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 is under consideration.
The Government of Canada is committed to demonstrating leadership in ensuring health and environmental impacts of mercury emissions are reduced across Canada.
Canada has several existing international agreements to limit the transport of mercury as a heavy metal and has also committed under the Canada-wide standards for mercury emissions from coal-fired electric power generation plants to seek further international agreements to reduce the effect of mercury pollution in Canada from foreign countries.
At the UN Environment Programme’s Governing Council meeting earlier this year, I along with my counterparts in over 140 countries unanimously agreed to launch negotiations on an international mercury treaty, which some would like to see in place within three years. Given that 80% or more of the mercury deposited in Canada comes from other countries, this treaty is important to Canada.
In addition, the new U.S. administration is also moving forward with new regulations on mercury emissions from coal-fired power generation.
Canada is committed to working with the United States and the international community to further reduce global mercury emissions.
In response to b) A regulation on mercury emissions from coal-fired electric power is under consideration.
With respect to Veterans Affairs Canada Health Benefits: (a) what is the rationale behind the application of a deduction, in most cases of $5, from the repayment of taxi fares for veterans seeking treatment or diagnosis from doctors, hospitals, or health care facilities; (b) what is the total amount Veterans Affairs Canada deducted from all repayment of taxi fares in the 2007-2008 fiscal year; and (c) has a review of this policy been undertaken by Veterans Affairs Canada?
Hon. Greg Thompson (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in response to a) and c) Financial support for travel to receive treatment benefits is authorized in the Veterans Health Care Regulations, VHCRs. The VHCRs include a deduction of $5.00 for each trip from the cost of taxi travel. However, the VHCRs also allow for $5.00 deduction to be waived whenever there is any reasonable concern that this deduction may negatively impact the client's ability to access needed treatment benefits. The deduction may be waived if the client's mobility or cognition is severely impaired, or it would seriously impede the client's ability to access treatment benefits.
The relevant policy was reviewed in 2007 and as a result, a policy statement was sent to the field in 2007 to clarify the intent of the policy and ensure staff were applying section 34.2, the regulatory authority to waive the deductible for aging veterans dealing with multiple and complex health needs who require frequent visits to treatment centres. The relevant policy allows for the full benefit of doubt given to the veteran and recognize that a deductible for those in lower income situations has the effect of creating a potential barrier to seeking needed medical care.
In response to b) The department does not track information specific to deductions on the repayment of taxi fares. In 2007-2008, there were over 90,000 payments for taxi fares processed for a total of close to $1.9 million paid to veterans.
[English]
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
[Text]
With regard to the Extension of Employment Insurance Benefits, under the Pilot Project 10 and funding for skills and development and training, within the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC): (a) broken down by provincial and territorial jurisdictions, how many clients of HRSDC were receiving EI benefits on February 28, 2009 and out of that number, (i) how many were receiving the benefit of the additional five weeks under Project Pilot 10, in each provincial and territorial jurisdiction, (ii) what were the same statistics by provincial and territorial jurisdiction for March 31, 2009; and (b) broken down by provincial and territorial jurisdiction, (i) how many clients applied and how many clients were approved for training and skills development benefits while receiving regular Employment Insurance benefits from January 1, 2008 to April 30, 2008, (ii) how many clients applied and how many clients were approved for training and skills development benefits while receiving regular Employment Insurance benefits from January 1, 2009 to April 30, 2009?
(Return tabled)
— With regard to funding applications submitted to FedNor, the Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario, for each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2009-2010: (a) which projects were submitted under each agency program; (b) which project were approved; (c) what amount was allocated to each of these projects; and (d) which projects were not processed?
(Return tabled)
With respect to Expert Panels created by the Minister of Finance since January 2006: (a) which Panels have been so struck, on what date, and which individuals are they composed of; (b) what was the length of duration of each Panel, when and in what locations did each Panel meet; (c) what were the final conclusions and recommendations made by each Panel and have these conclusions been made publicly accessible and, if so, what is the Internet address for each Panel conclusion; and (d) what compensation was paid to each member and what travel, hospitality and miscellaneous expenses were submitted by each panelist, according to each Panel?
(Return tabled)
With respect to investing in retraining and apprenticeships: (a) what is the government's plan to ensure that apprenticeships are being taken up by the industry during this economic downturn; (b) what new programs will the government undertake to assist unemployed Canadians to retrain for new opportunities; (c) what will the government's response be to the issue of rising tuition and costs incurred to complete apprenticeships; (d) what specific agreements have been signed with the provinces for the transfer of funds for retraining and apprenticeships, to improve the lives of Canadians, and to partner to help Canadian industries grow in these difficult economic times; and (e) what future investments is the government planning for the technical colleges and institutes across Canada?
(Return tabled)
With respect to investing in research and innovation, specifically regarding Brock University in St. Catharine's, Ontario: (a) what is the government's plan to ensure that Canadian research and development remain an example to the rest of the world; (b) what is the government prepared to do to ensure that the best and brightest remain in Canada; (c) what research grants will the government be making available this year, both at Brock University and across Canada; (d) what new programs will the government undertake to assist students; (e) what will the government's response be to the issue of rising tuition; (f) what specific steps will the government take to invest in research and development, to improve the lives of Canadians, and to partner to help Canadian industries grow in these difficult economic times; and (g) what future investments is the government planning for Brock University specifically as well as the colleges and universities across Canada?
(Return tabled)
With respect to applications to sponsor family members for permanent residency made by residents of the constituency of Vancouver Kingsway: (a) what is the average processing time for applications made to sponsor family members from (i) China, (ii) the Philippines, (iii) India, (iv) all countries aggregated; (b) what is the approval rate for applications made to sponsor family member from (i) China, (ii) the Philippines, (iii) India, (iv) all countries aggregated; and (c) what are the top five main grounds for denying claims and their rates of usage for applications made to sponsor family members from (i) China, (ii) the Philippines, (iii) India, (iv) all countries aggregated?
(Return tabled)
With regards to the Broadband for Rural and Northern Development Program Pilot Program: (a) how much did the program cost on an annual basis; (b) did the government achieve its stated goal of universal access by 2005 and, if not, what level of coverage did it achieve, overall and in each participating community and what factors prevented the program from attaining universal access; (c) for what reasons was the program not expanded beyond the pilot stage; (d) which communities participated in the pilot project, what funding did each community receive on an annual basis and what level of accessibility did each recipient community achieve; (e) what was the funding allocation, broken down by province; (f) what is the current level of broadband connectivity in each area that took part in the pilot program; (g) according to province, which communities are still without broadband access and how many of those are First Nations; (h) on a per capita basis for the last five years, how does access to broadband in rural and northern communities compare with Canada’s major urban centres; and (i) what strategies is the government currently undertaking to improve broadband access to rural and northern communities and what resources have been committed to such initiatives?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act: (a) when will an order of the Governor in Council be issued to bring this legislation into force; (b) how many pay equity complaints are currently before the Canadian Human Rights Commission; and (c) how many pay equity complaints will be transferred from the Canadian Human Rights Commission to the Public Service Labour Relations Board?
(Return tabled)
Government Orders
[Business of Supply ]
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this matter, namely the vote on the estimates, the outcome of which we will know shortly.
I am announcing that all members of the Bloc Québécois will not concur in the estimates. There is a very simple reason for this decision. The estimates are closely related to the entire budget tabled by the Conservative government and supported by the Liberals. As we said when the budget was passed and during debate on the budget, we realized that the budget was not good for Quebec, that it was bad for Quebec. That is why we will be voting against the estimates because the implementation of this budget deprives Quebec of significant means to ensure its development.
A number of reasons justify what I have just said. We have realized that, contrary to the unanimous will expressed on a number of occasions in Quebec's National Assembly, the Conservative budget, once again supported by the Liberals, does not help Quebec at all in the way desired by the National Assembly of Quebec, which unanimously asked for certain measures.
On January 15, 2009, Quebec's National Assembly passed a unanimous motion calling for more help for workers, communities and businesses affected by the downturn, and for significant support for the manufacturing and forestry sectors, which are going through a particularly hard time.
In that regard, the Conservative budget, which was recently increased, was completely unfair. In its budget, the party gave the auto sector nearly $4 billion, and has since increased that amount. Now the auto sector will be getting almost $10 billion.
That same budget allocated just $270 million over three years to the forestry sector across Canada. But in every region of Quebec, forestry companies, paper mills, sawmills and softwood lumber companies are facing serious challenges, and thousands of people have lost their jobs. Yet the Conservative government gave us a budget that ignores them all.
Early this week, the government announced a new measure that Quebec is unanimously against. The government would have us believe that its new measure will solve a bunch of problems, but that is not true. It is not true because what the Conservatives announced will help just eight plants in Quebec, while nearly 50 of them need loan guarantees. The Conservative government is stubbornly insisting that it cannot provide loan guarantees because that would upset the Americans.
The Americans, for their part, are doing as they please, working to help their businesses and standing up for them while this Conservative government, with Liberal support, is not. People in the regions are paying the price. They are the ones having trouble making ends meet and making their mortgage payments. Quebec's forestry sector has been in trouble for a long time now. But the Conservatives have left people in the forestry sector and people in the regions of Quebec to their own devices.
In the motion I talked about earlier, the Quebec National Assembly also asked for improvements to the employment insurance system. There is something that does not make sense in the current situation, since we know that the system's funds were cut drastically in the 1990s by the Liberal government. Nearly $50 billion was taken away from unemployed workers. The Liberals did that, with the Conservatives' support. Now that they have taken and spent the money that belonged to the workers and employers, they are incapable of saying here today that we should give back the money taken from workers who are going through tough times.
But no, no one is doing that. Nothing is being done. We thought for a moment that the Liberals were beginning to wake up. They asked for an EI eligibility threshold of 360 hours. We thought they were perhaps beginning to understand. But that is not the case. They dropped the ball again. We saw the birth of this new coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberals. But once again, the Liberals returned to their normal ways. They tried to project another image, but no one was fooled. They tried to give a different impression, but quickly went back to their old ways.
The Liberals and the Conservatives made a conscious decision to ignore the demands of Quebec. Instead of helping Quebec, they decided to deprive Quebec of substantial means to deal with the crisis. On the contrary—and this is what bothers Quebeckers most about the Liberals, who support the Conservatives, and the Conservatives themselves—they decided to respond to the wishes of Ontario and the west.
The auto sector is in trouble; no one is denying that. However, when one sector is offered $10 billion and another sector is offered only a tenth of that, even though it is also struggling and has just as many workers, that is completely unfair.
The government offered $10 billion to the automotive industry and $1 billion to the forestry industry, which does not even suit the different companies in Quebec. It is completely unfair. It is fortunate that the Bloc Québécois is here now to defend people from the regions, the workers of Quebec, the different companies. We hear them, we understand their needs and we will defend them. We are prepared to put our seats on the line. We will vote against the estimates. The Liberals have wiped themselves out by creating a coalition and a bogus working group that at the end of the day will go nowhere.
This Conservative-Liberal plan is a failure. The unemployment rate is still very high in Quebec—we have heard it is 8.7%—and the second progress report shows that the Conservatives have not even been able to provide what they promised. They are boasting that 80% of the plan is already being implemented. But when we are talking about a plan to support businesses, workers and families during a recession, an economic crisis, 100% of the program should be up and running right now, and that is not the case.
Building Canada, which we have heard so much about, was passed in the 2007 budget. We are still waiting for building Canada projects to be announced and carried out. It makes no sense. Here is an example. We are still waiting for the Super PEPS in Quebec City, which was announced as part of the building Canada program.
We saw what happened this week with this new coalition. I think that the people of Quebec realize that the Liberals and the Conservatives are one and the same and always will be.
They said that they would fight for the unemployed who were going to starve this summer, but the following day they sat down and said they would create a working group. In the meantime, the people they said would starve during the summer have nothing. They just hope these people will not starve while waiting, but it will be fall before we see any concrete action.
And even then, the working group will submit its report in the fall, but how long will it take before anything happens? What does the government, supported by the Liberals, really want to offer to Quebeckers, to people who are struggling? One has to wonder.
I repeat; we will be voting against the estimates.
[English]
The hon. member for Vancouver East is rising on a point of order.
Madam Speaker, as you know, earlier on a point of order the House was very co-operative and agreed to extend the time for petitions, this being the last day. We did that and everybody very much appreciated it.
As it stands now with the estimates debate, the bells are scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m. for a vote at 1:15 p.m., the NDP will lose its spot. I would like to ask the House to further co-operate. I seek unanimous consent to extend the debate on the estimates for 10 minutes and forego the questions and comments to allow the NDP a speaking spot on the estimates.
Madam Speaker, I have more of a comment than a question.
The President of the Treasury Board and member for Provencher have elevated the replacement of the Letellier Bridge in his riding over the higher priority Disraeli Bridge rehabilitation in Winnipeg. Over 6,500 people have signed petitions protesting the 16-month closure of this major Winnipeg artery, carrying over 40,000 cars per day and affecting over 100,000 people in the northeast part of the city.
There will be 40,000 cars rushing through the Elmwood side streets to get to single-lane bridges like Redwood or the Louise Bridge from Transcona or the Watts Street-Archibald route to St. Boniface. Drivers who use any of these routes, not just the Disraeli, should be prepared for gridlock every day and area residents should be prepared for cars speeding down their back lanes—
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I listened to the question and, if I have understood correctly, the member is talking about a problem in his riding regarding transportation. We also noticed during the spring that the government was boasting about 80% of the projects being implemented already. We see that there was poor planning and poor organization. I completely agree with him that efforts were not made to ensure that it would all come about in an orderly fashion in order for the work to be completed in a reasonable period of time.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 95)
|
[English]
| That the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in. |
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 96)
|
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 97)
|
(On Clause 2)
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board if he can assure the House that the bill is indeed in its usual form.
Mr. Chair, I wish to give the following assurance that the form of the bill is essentially the same as was passed in the previous supply period.
Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
Shall schedule 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Schedule 2 agreed to)
Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Bill agreed to)
The Chair: Shall I rise and report the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Bill reported)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 98)
|