Debates of Sept. 16th, 2009

Taxation

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even though economic recovery is far from a sure thing, the Conservatives are planning to increase the tax burden on workers.

The Conservatives are going to increase employment insurance contribution rates. That means more tax deducted from every paycheque. Conservative cronyism is worse than ever, and still they attack workers.

Why do they not care more about what is in Canadians' best interest?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member is aware that her party is the one that left the table even though we agreed to a bipartisan committee at the end of June—her party and our party, our government—to come up with measures to help the unemployed. Her party abandoned the unemployed, not ours. We tabled our plan to introduce a bill to help long-tenured workers by giving them between five and 20 extra weeks of benefits.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there was never really an opportunity for discussion because the government ran away. We never got any answers to our questions. The government became adept at avoiding them.

The problem is that household expenditures, which is how workers spend their paycheques, are what keep our economy going. Everyone knows that. If the Conservatives raise employment insurance premiums, it will be like siphoning fuel out of the Canadian economy's gas tank.

Are they planning to pump even more out of workers' pockets because they know that they are about to run out of gas?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, there are two ways to help people who are going through a hard time because of a recession. The first is to stimulate the economy. That is what our government is doing with infrastructure measures across the country. The second is to implement measures to help the unemployed, to help those who are in trouble. The four measures we have brought in will enable 790,000 people to take advantage of the new assistance we are offering. For 2009-10, employee contributions have been frozen at $1.73 per $100.

Employment Insurance

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance said that he would not raise taxes, while at the same time booking a huge EI payroll tax increase. Yesterday the minister's parliamentary secretary actually told the truth, saying “that after a two year period the premiums will increase”.

Today, will the minister follow the lead of his parliamentary secretary and tell the truth to Canadians, admit to the payroll tax increase and tell Canadians how much?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as part of the economic action plan, we included freezing EI premiums for two years at substantial cost. After the economic statement, it is finished. It is a temporary plan. It is what Parliament voted for.

After the stimulus ends, and it will end, then we will move back toward surplus. EI premiums, as set by the board with the authority of Parliament in 2008, will go forward in the normal way.

What we will not do is raise taxes like the member for Markham—Unionville says, “raising taxes is certainly a mathematical possibility in one way or another”.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, rising payroll taxes is a mathematical certainty under the government. Because Canadians cannot trust the government, I have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to tell Canadians the truth about the amount of additional premiums that they will pay.

Will it be $300? Will it be $400? Will Canadians have to wait for the PBO to tell them the truth or will the minister stand up right now and tell Canadians how much more they will pay?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance program is an important social program. We agreed in Parliament, Parliament supported it, that the program should pay for itself except during the time of recession, when we need to stimulate the economy.

That is why we froze premiums for a period of two years. This was supported by Parliament. It should pay its own way and not what the party opposite did. When the Liberals were the government, they built up a slush fund and used it for their private projects and for their own edification.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, older workers who have received over 35 weeks of employment insurance over the past five years will be excluded from the measures announced by the government. Not only is it inadequate, but this program unfairly excludes thousands of workers who have endured multiple work interruptions over the past few years.

How can the minister so cruelly raise the hopes of older workers, when in reality, she has nothing meaningful to offer them?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I hope the Bloc Québécois member also noted that it was the Liberals who abandoned the bipartisan committee that was supposed to look at measures to help the unemployed.

We, on the other hand, did not abandon them. We have introduced several measures. The latest measure, specifically for long-tenured workers, will provide them with an additional five to 20 weeks of EI benefits. That measure will cost $935 million, and 189,000 people will benefit from it. There are still a few in Canada who need it.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since April 2005, some 25,000 jobs have been lost in Quebec in the forestry sector, while in the auto sector, which is concentrated in Ontario, thousands of jobs have been lost, mainly in the last year. The economic downturn has been affecting forestry workers for several years now, and they risk being excluded from a program that seems to target primarily the auto industry.

Do the ministers from Quebec realize that they are proposing a program designed mainly for Ontario, and that they have done nothing to help the Quebec forestry industry since 2006?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, we tried to come up with ways to help long-tenured workers, to help those who have been paying into the system for many years, and to ensure that, when they go through a rough patch, they have more time to find a job. We are giving an additional five to 20 weeks. Exactly who will this help? It will help people who work in mines, in forestry, in the manufacturing sector and yes, in the auto sector. We are very aware of what is happening in the Quebec forestry sector.

Forestry Industry

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, only the Conservatives were opposed at the industry committee to the Bloc’s proposal to increase the amount of lumber used in the construction and renovation of federal buildings. In a dissenting report, they called this recommendation troubling.

What really is troubling is the grovelling of the two ministers from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. What troubles them? Defending forestry workers? Defending the interests of dozens of Quebec communities whose economies depend on forestry?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I can say only one thing and that is that the members for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean have really delivered the goods.

We have an economic action plan that has been very successful. Go and see any town, go and see the province of Quebec, and the results are there right now.

Insofar as federal buildings are concerned, I will say it for the third time. They are hard of hearing and fail to understand. Some $323 million has been invested in economic stimulus for building renovations. That means more demand for lumber. It is not hard to understand. This is good news, but still they try to run it down. Our colleagues here are really delivering the goods. So much the better for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government has not done anything good for the forest industry. Owners of private woodlots have suffered major losses but are being left on their own. There are solutions, however. The Bloc Québécois has proposed changes to the tax rules to relax the rules on the deduction of expenses for forest resources management and to introduce a registered silviculture savings plan.

How can the minister responsible for economic development go on justifying his inaction in regard to the owners of private woodlots?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, as the members of the party on the other side know, when the economic action plan was adopted, a community adjustment fund was established that has enabled our government to help the forest industry all over Canada, including in the province of Quebec.

We announced $200 million for silviculture and forest resources management, and $30 million has gone to the industry for private woodlots. Thirty million dollars is no small amount. It sure is more than the Bloc has come up with in 18 years. As usual, they voted against that too.

Medical Isotopes

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, inaction on the part of the Conservative government has left hospital budgets stretched to the limit. It has put at risk thousands of Canadians in need of cancer tests and medical treatment.

Now it appears the government has decided to try to blame the provinces and doctors for their medical isotope shortage. The Conservatives are claiming that the Chalk River shutdown has nothing to do with the 25% of Ontario cancer patients and other patients not receiving their treatment.

Does the minister really think Canadians are that gullible?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the nuclear file, there is just one Liberal mess after another with which we have to deal. The Liberals tried to replace an aging NRU with a faulty design. When that did not work, they did nothing, no contingency plans, no backup plans.

It was this government that acted, and this government continues to clean up the messes left by that party. We will take no lessons from the Liberals on this file.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a typical Conservative government ploy. It rewrites history so as not to take its share of the blame.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke claims there is no connection between the closure of the Chalk River reactor and longer wait times for cancer detection and treatment.

When she answers questions about this crisis, she blames the provinces and the doctors.

Is this the position of the Conservative government? Is this the latest excuse it has found for not having a plan B?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, this Conservative government has been working diligently on the matter. We are helping with respect to the facilitation of an isotope shortage in our country. We are directing AECL clearly to repair the NRU as quickly as possible.

It is very clear as well, now that they are in opposition, the Liberals will stoop to anything to score political points off of their own disasters, knowing very well we are doing everything that is absolutely appropriate on this matter.

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been months and months, yet we have seen no change in the protectionist buy American provisions that are killing Canadian jobs.

A few diplomatic words from the President do not actually change any facts. Indeed, all we see are words in unanswered letters and photo ops, but it is not even federal. A major problem is the individual states and municipalities, which are outside of NAFTA.

What specific results, not words, could the minister report to us from Washington?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disappointing to hear my colleague opposite diminish the words of the President of the United States. It is somewhat reminiscent of how the Liberals dealt with the United States when they were in government, always diminishing what the U.S. was doing with us.

Directly related to the procurement agreement, the premiers and territorial leaders came together several weeks ago, in rather an unprecedented and historic way, and they agreed on a procurement agreement among provinces and territories. It was unprecedented on their part and they should be congratulated for that. They should not be diminished for doing it.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again I repeat, it is not words but action we want from the United States. That is not how it works in the United States. It is not enough to write letters, to have nice words and provide weak protest. It was 42 minutes with the President, giving the Prime Minister a photo op, and a few pat on the back words, but that is it.

We should have had people on the ground right from the beginning, not only our premiers and territorial leaders but in the United States, and not just in Washington but working with those individual states and municipalities, which are not bound by NAFTA.

When can we expect results? Only when it is too late?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is being a good soldier and continuing to read out the questions that have been hastily written out and handed to her.

However, I can add some more words to President Obama's evaluation. Upon hearing the proposal that has been brought forward, a proposal that was worked on by premiers and territorial leaders, he also said today that it appears there may be ways to deal with this bilaterally, that we are working together on this and that this in fact might be one solution.

We are not there yet. There is more work to do, but progress is being made on this.

Health

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that our government is hard at work preparing for a potential second wave of the H1N1 pandemic and we are focused on ensuring that Canadians are informed and protected.

Could the Minister of Health provide the House with an update on co-operative efforts in this regard with the provinces and territories?