Debates of June 17th, 2009

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1, a private member's item may only be considered by the House after a final decision on the votable status of the item has been made.

Although Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act (involvement of Parliament), is scheduled for debate in the House today, no report on the votable status of the bill has been presented and concurred in as is required before the bill can be debated.

I direct the table officers to drop the item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private members' business will thus be suspended for today.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you see the clock at 6:57 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Shall I see the clock as 6:57 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again I have the honour and pleasure of taking part in the adjournment debate to revisit questions I have raised in this House and for which I have had no satisfactory answers from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.

On March 25, I asked questions about the CBC, which is currently in a very critical situation. It has a deficit of $171 million and has had to lay off 800 people, people who worked directly for the CBC and are now out of work. We need to keep in mind that 800 direct CBC jobs represent 3,200 indirect jobs. This is a very serious situation in Quebec as it is everywhere in Canada. These people losing their jobs are information and television specialists. There is no other CBC or Radio-Canada in Quebec or in Canada.

I asked a question of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and my leader asked the same thing that same afternoon. All the CBC was asking for in order to avoid this real catastrophe and tragedy was a simple cash advance. Nothing complicated about that. It would have made it possible to save 800 direct and 3,200 indirect jobs. These are people, men and women, professionals who are now out of work and lining up for employment insurance. We do not know what kind of summer they will have, and neither do they.

This is a terrible situation and must not be looked at merely in terms of figures or statistics. We have to think about these individuals who are experiencing a real tragedy and we must have compassion for them, something that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages showed no sign of. He told us that even if he had given $125 million to the CBC, there would still have been 800 people laid off. We know that is not true. What is more, he claims to have increased its budget, when in fact he has kept it the same. Sometimes he says it has been kept the same, sometimes he says that he has increased it. This is clear evidence of lack of clarity.

What is clear, though, is that an organization called Friends of Canadian Broadcasting has provided a table which shows that, in 2009 dollars, the parliamentary votes for the CBC have decreased drastically. I cannot show that table, but I could table it with unanimous consent, which would give me immense pleasure. This table shows that under the Mulroney government in 1990 and 1991, the CBC received $1,589,700,000, and now under the Conservative government of this present Prime Minister, it is getting $1, 052,600,000. That is a difference of $500 million. How can this government boast that it is maintaining the CBC budget, or indeed that it has raised it? The figures show the opposite.

If there is one thing in life that does not lie, it is numbers. A person can do all sorts of things to manipulate words, but not numbers. The budget went from $1,589,700,000 to $1,052,600,000. The truth is that the government has not maintained the CBC budget. On the contrary, it is constantly decreasing. The Conservatives will argue that the Liberals did worse than that in 1995 when they slashed $400 million from the CBC budget, and they will be absolutely right in saying so.

That said, I am again asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languagesto answer my question.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is not clear why the member keeps asking the same questions when she is getting the straight goods on the answer. She could look it up herself if she did not believe the answer, but she knows the truth. She knows that the CBC is receiving in excess of $1.1 billion from this government, which is more than it received from the previous government, substantially more than it received from the previous government.

She also knows that the executive vice-president, Richard Stursberg, of the CBC said that an extension of a line of credit, and I am reading from her question, or a loan to CBC would not have had any impact on the job decisions that were being made at the CBC. She is simply not being forthcoming with the House. Despite the fact that the member continues to get the exact answer. Why is it the exact same answer? Because it is factual, because it is the truth. That is why we keep giving the same answer. The CBC is receiving more than $1.1 billion from this government.

I did go into this last week and I am very encouraged on the one hand by this debate because I am always encouraged when the Bloc Québécois stands and sees the value in national institutions like the CBC. Maybe in her supplemental she might talk about some other Canadian institutions or things about Canada that are really valuable to Quebec, maybe having a Canadian passport, Canadian citizenship, maybe that is really important in Quebec. I believe it is. It is certainly important to Canadians in other parts of the country and I believe it is something that Quebeckers cherish greatly. Perhaps she would talk about the RCMP, a great institution that has provided so much to the country, the Canadian Forces, or maybe national museums, several of which are located in Quebec.

I gather the Bloc would also stand and support these national institutions and that is really encouraging because Canada is such a great country with great strengths. It is wonderful that we can talk about national institutions. The CBC, for example, a Conservative creation, is a public broadcaster that tells Canadians our story and has done so since it was created in the 1930s.

Our government made a promise in the last election that we would maintain or increase funding to the CBC. That is what we have done. We acknowledge that there are challenges in broadcasting right now. In fact, the member was part of a committee that worked on a broadcast study that should be tabled shortly in the House, so we know full well what is going on as the member does as well.

She also knows the truth with respect to the CBC. She knows there are headwinds facing all the broadcasters, that advertising revenues have declined, but government support for the CBC has in fact increased. She knows that full well.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last year's report by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage indicated that the CBC had some very specific requirements if it was to overcome its financial difficulties. The report called for it to receive funding equivalent to $40 per capita. It called for the $60 million this government is forcing the CBC to beg for year in and year out to be integrated into the budget. It called for the CBC to have stable, predictable funding and a memorandum of understanding that would run for a minimum of seven years. Recently, the Bloc Québécois called for the 5% reduction resulting from the strategic program review not to be taken away at the end of the review period.

I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to respond favourably to each of these requests.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, and as I have indicated, we have already increased funding to the CBC, but the member also knows that the Bloc came forward with two economic stimulus packages. Neither of them targeted any money to the CBC. Thank goodness that in our economic action plan, in our budget, we did put more money into the CBC, and the member knows that. The member also knows that she voted against it.

It is really difficult to say put more money into the CBC and when a budget comes forward that actually puts more money into the CBC, she voted against it and claimed it was in the interests of Quebec. I thought the member wanted Radio-Canada and the CBC in Quebec, but when more money came forward, she voted against it. It is really confusing.

I do not know where to go with the member's questions on this, or questions on the arts, and so many things. On the one hand Bloc members forget completely about this when it comes to their stimulus plans, and on the other hand they vote against more money. They are really confused.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, three months ago I asked the minister about difficulties in accessing EI benefits.

At that time, the answer I received was the same tired answer that Canadians are used to from the government. That answer was that extending benefits for five weeks was all that would be done to help unemployed Canadians in this time of economic crisis. The only other thing that was told to them was that EI call centres would be open on Saturdays, but that was to inform them that they were not eligible for benefits.

Too many Canadians are falling through the cracks and are left with no alternative but to join the municipal welfare rolls, and that is unfair to the provinces and municipalities.

Nationally, according to the June labour force survey, unemployment increased by 42,000, led by further manufacturing losses in Ontario. The unemployment rate rose to 8.4% nationally, the highest in 11 years. Ontario experienced a substantial employment decline in May. It was down 60,000 jobs, bringing the total losses since October to 234,000, or 3.5%.

While Ontario accounts for 39% of the total working age population, it experienced 64% of the overall employment losses. The Ontario unemployment rate is higher than the national average and has risen to 9.4%, the highest in 15 years, yet the government was doing nothing, nothing until today, when our leader finally managed to convince the Prime Minister that change is needed.

The government has recognized, for the first time, the importance of regional fairness in expanding eligibility for EI, along with the need to allow self-employed Canadians to voluntarily participate in the EI system. A six-person working group, with three Liberals and three Conservatives, will work through the summer to develop proposals in these areas and report back to Canadians.

The government has also agreed to bring Parliament back early and deliver an additional accountability report to Canadians the week of September 28, to be followed by a Liberal opposition day that gives us the opportunity to bring forward a confidence motion if needed, a guarantee we have never had before.

The next accountability report must include the government's deficit forecast as well as progress on job-creating stimulus spending. The Conservatives have agreed to support this Friday's Liberal opposition day motion, which sets a timetable throughout the fall for all opposition parties to hold the government accountable through confidence motions if needed.

Would the member tell me why it took the threat of defeating the government to get it to finally take this situation seriously?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, we always take these matters seriously and there is no doubt about the fact that we are absolutely committed to helping Canadians who are going through this difficult time, through no fault of their own, to get through the difficult time. That is why we have already taken unprecedented steps to ensure that Canadians in need get the help they deserve.

To say we have done nothing is like someone saying he is driving a North American GM Chevy when he knows he is not. We are doing things. We are taking steps.

Over 85% of Canadians have easier access to EI now compared to October of last year. Through our Conservative government's economic action plan, we have lowered taxes and we have made unprecedented investments to help vulnerable and unemployed Canadians.

We have added five weeks to EI benefits, taking the pilot project national. We have increased EI's maximum duration to 50 weeks. We are preserving over 130,000 jobs through a better work-sharing program, less red tape and more flexibility.

We have added significant funds to help speed up processing. We are investing significantly in skills training for Canadians so they can get the jobs of the future.

We have committed $5.5 billion in total this year to EI benefits. That is interesting in light of the comments of my colleague. We need to keep our economic action plan moving forward. We are pleased that the official opposition, and this hon. member, will work with our government to keep our stimulus measures flowing to Canadians.

We are also looking forward to working with the official opposition on employment insurance. While it knows that we will not accept the 360-hour, 45-day work year proposal, there is room to find common ground on many issues.

We are pleased that the Liberal Party is willing to work with us toward finding constructive, responsible and affordable common ground on employment insurance, so that we can continue to help those Canadians going through tough economic times and move toward a more prosperous future. It is the responsible thing to do. It is the kind of thing that Canadians expect of us.

Once again, I thank the hon. member for her support of our economic action plan and the steps that we are taking.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the government recognized that it took the leader of the Liberal Party to convince the Prime Minister to ensure this change.

The blue ribbon panel announced today will include senior members from both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, along with senior policy people. The task force will, over the summer, formulate necessary changes to the EI system. We need to be sure that the work of the task force will not simply be cast aside without a second look.

Now that we have the government's attention, will it make a commitment to bring in the changes that will be recommended by the bipartisan panel to change our EI system during the economic crisis?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear the member back off the 360 hours, 45-day work year and go forward with something far more constructive.

Our Conservative government's economic plan is helping Canadians keep their jobs. It is helping Canadians to get new skills. It is helping Canadians to get through these tough economic times and move toward a more prosperous future.

I am pleased the Liberal opposition is willing to work with the Conservative government to ensure we help Canadians in a responsible, effective and affordable way so we can move toward economic recovery as quickly and as responsibly as we can.

I invite the member to work with us, get behind us, as she said she would.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the excellent question by my colleague on EI.

When I asked a question back in April, the minister indicated that her system of EI was working because more people were eligible. More people were eligible because more people were not working. In other words, the success of the government's program was measured by the fact that more people were unemployed. That is a death spiral sanctioned by the government. That is no way to run a government in an economically difficult time.

There may be an opportunity now to work on this issue as a result of the agreement made between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I want to commend the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister for seeing this needs some work.

We have to do something for the unemployed in our country. Employment insurance is the best stimulus that we have. If we compare employment insurance to infrastructure or tax cuts, it is the best stimulus bar none.

Tax cuts are not an effective way to deal with stimulus. There are all kinds of economic advantages to them, but as stimulus they fail. Infrastructure is a good project in an economically difficult time and it can be a good stimulus, but the money has to get out the door, and the government has had trouble doing that. Employment insurance goes directly into the hands of people who have no choice but to spend it.

There are 58 different regions across the country and there have been some good reasons for that. These regions determine who is eligible, how quickly they become eligible and how long they will get benefits. It makes a lot of sense. It is more difficult to get work in an area with chronically high unemployment.

On the other hand, people in areas that have not suffered from high unemployment in years past are now suffering from it. I am speaking of places like Alberta, like my colleague's province of Saskatchewan, and B.C. We need to have something that equalizes the opportunity.

The Premier of Alberta and the Premier of B.C. have called for a national standard. It makes sense. Everybody is calling for it. One may argue about whether it should be 360 hours, or 390 hours or 420 hours, but we need a national standard for EI eligibility. Maybe we can still look at how long a person would draw that benefit. However, people need to know that everybody is equal in our country. If they lose their jobs, they need to know they will be treated well by the government.

It is not acceptable to say that the employment insurance system works because as more people become unemployed they will qualify. That means people are in the position of having to hope that their friends, their neighbours and their colleagues will lose their jobs so they can qualify for EI. Nobody wants that. That is not the way to run the system.

I have been asked by my leader to be on the panel that will have a look at this, along with one of my colleagues and some members of the Conservative Party. I do not know what will happen. I pledge to the House that I will do my best to work hard to find some solutions. I hope the government will do the same thing.

This is the single biggest economic issue that we have in Canada. It goes to the issue of fairness and it goes to the issue of helping people who need it the most. At this time, when Canada is suffering, when we are having trouble getting infrastructure money out the door, we should be putting money in the pockets of people who need it and who will spend it, not only because it is good for them, but because it is good for Canada.

The parliamentary secretary should join the committee. We could work together on this and find some solutions. I hope we will have an eventful summer. I have to go home now and explain to my wife why we have to change our summer plans, but this is a positive thing for Parliament and for Canada.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour in being appointed to the blue-ribbon panel. Certainly it is good see this member getting on board in a constructive fashion. I know, despite the fact that he sometimes blusters, he is a very sincere and reasonable person, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he will make an important contribution to the end result. I do think we will see some productive work done through the summer. Certainly I congratulate the member in his role and wish him the best as he goes forward through the summer with the hearings.

As I have just said, we are certainly pleased that the member opposite will help our government to get our stimulus measures out to help Canadians. We are absolutely committed to helping Canadians get through tough economic times in order that they can move towards a more prosperous future. Our government has taken strong and unprecedented steps to help Canadians.

I think, in fairness, if one is to be objective, one has to look at what we have done. We have added five weeks to EI benefits. We have taken the pilot project national. We have increased EI's maximum duration to 50 weeks, up from 45 weeks. Over 130,000 Canadians are benefiting from improvements we have made to the work-sharing program. We have added significant funds, $60 million, to help speed up EI claims processing. We are investing significantly in skills training for Canadians, and we have lowered taxes for all Canadians.

When one looks at the total package, I think if one is to be objective and fair, one would have to say we are doing a significant amount. We have said we would continue to monitor the situation. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, we need to keep our economic action plan moving forward, because it, too, will create jobs. We are pleased that the official opposition will now work with our government to keep our stimulus measures flowing to Canadians.

We are also pleased that the official opposition, including the member opposite himself, will be working with our government towards finding a realistic, responsible and effective common ground on employment insurance so that we can continue to help Canadians get through these economic troubles and move toward a strong recovery.

The member opposite knows from the many times that we have discussed it here in the House and that I have mentioned it, the 360-hour, 45-day work year proposal is not realistic and it is a non-starter. The Prime Minister alluded to this earlier today. However, he also said he hopes we can find common ground.

I am sure we will be able to do that if we work in a constructive fashion. I look forward to finding this common ground, and I think Canadians do, too.

So that is what we expect from this group and from the member opposite. I am hoping that, when we come back, we will see some very positive, constructive recommendations.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the summer is almost here, and I deviate from my usual message to compliment the parliamentary secretary for the work he has done in the committee. I do enjoy working with him.

The human resources committee, I think, is a model for all committees. I see my colleague here from Cape Breton—Canso, who was on the human resources committee in the last Parliament before being demoted to whip in this Parliament. He knows how well this committee has worked.

I want to commend the chair of the committee, the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook, who has been a very effective chair and has often put issues, policy and principle ahead of politics.

If we can make this committee work, it is by using the principles we have used in the human resources committee, which is that we have to put Canadians first. Let us look at solutions.

I have always said, in talking about EI, I believe in a 360-hour national standard. I do not like the way it is characterized by some members. They are insulting Canadians by implying that they are lazy.

On the other hand, we have to go forward and we have to have some way of determining what is the best thing for Canadians. If we can work on that this summer, we can get some productive work done.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here a number of times in the last while and I have had to repeat the message quite often because the opposition members cannot seem to get it. So we have had to go through the number of things we have done. They have been very significant things. We have taken strong steps, unprecedented steps, to help Canadians get through this difficult time. We will continue to work to help Canadians. We look forward to finding that common ground with the official opposition through the summer months to find a realistic, effective and responsible way to do that.

Certainly I compliment this hon. member in his work and interest in this area. I wish him well in the summer. I am sure it will detract from some of the things he wanted to do, but overall, I think it is important for Canadians to see that we can work together for common good in those areas where we believe we need to do that to help Canadians through this difficult time.

When members see us going forward with only that portion of our plan, the economic action plan, and as they see that hitting the ground, they will see how it will be helping our economy and Canadians. I think that is why we are here. That is why we work when we do. I hope for the best for the committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:14 p.m.)