House of Commons Hansard #112 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was registry.

Topics

Lévis Celebrations
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
B.C.

Conservative

James Moore Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages

Mr. Speaker, that is the maximum that the City of Lévis can receive from the fund in question. There have also been requests made for more money to other areas of my department. We are doing our homework. The applications have been received. We stand behind the City of Lévis, and there will be responses to the additional funding requests in the weeks to come. It is that simple.

Lévis Celebrations
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, here is another falsehood. The Minister stated that Lévis will receive less than Vancouver because “the cities are different sizes”. And yet, under his department's rules “cultural capitals” with over 125,000 residents, such as Lévis—which has 133,000 residents—and Vancouver are entitled to a maximum of $2 million.

What explanation can the minister give us as to why Vancouver is receiving $1.75 million and Lévis is receiving three-quarters of a million dollars less? How can he justify this?

Lévis Celebrations
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam
B.C.

Conservative

James Moore Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages

Mr. Speaker, the entire fund totals $3.5 million. The maximum amount available to the City of Lévis is $1 million, and that is what Lévis will receive. There are other applications for other projects being considered by my department.

I would like to stress that the only reason Quebec City has received the money that it has to date is because of the hard work by the Conservative member for Lévis—Bellechasse. The Bloc Québécois has done nothing on this issue. It is all thanks to one person: the hon. Stephen Blaney.

Census
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at committee the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration testified that his department is able to assess people's economic progress by linking tax data with specific immigration programs.

Could the minister inform this House where on the tax form it actually asks for specific immigration programs in which people came to Canada? Will he confirm that the government is either linking data across government departments, a gross violation of the privacy of Canadians, or misleading Canadians about the serious negative impacts of cancelling the mandatory long form census to be able to serve new and multicultural Canadians?

Census
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka
Ontario

Conservative

Tony Clement Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member should be replying to is the fact that she and her party consistently try to abridge the rights of Canadians when there are other alternatives available where Canadians can voluntarily give useful data for the census, for the questionnaires. That is our position. It is a balanced, fair and reasonable position.

The hon. member should answer this question to Canadians: Why does the hon. member want to threaten Canadians with jail time or fines to fill out a government form?

Census
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the decision to eliminate the long form census will have a major effect on crucial issues for women. We are hearing from all over Canada that these changes will negatively affect the ability of the government and civil society to make good decisions. There will no longer be reliable data on family care, low-income families, single-parent families, women in need, or the number of women managing small businesses.

Does the government realize what harm this idiotic decision will do?

Census
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka
Ontario

Conservative

Tony Clement Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, as I already said, we have a reasonable, balanced position that will both protect the rights of Canadians and create a process for collecting useful information for our agency and the private sector.

That is our position. The hon. member should again stand in her place and describe to Canadians why she is in favour of having another system where they are threatened with jail time or fines to deliver this—

Census
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Employment Insurance
Oral Questions

2:50 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, an important EI pilot project for the people in areas of high unemployment ended Saturday. Reducing the hours needed to qualify for benefits can be the difference between going to the food bank and going to the grocery store. The economy is stalling. The private sector is cutting jobs. Most new jobs are part-time, leaving people short of hours if they lose their jobs.

Will the government acknowledge that many regions in Canada are still facing a job crisis and extend the important EI pilot project?

Employment Insurance
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk
Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, this was a pilot project, an idea we decided to try out. That is why we try pilot projects, to see if they work or if they do not. This one did not. It did not achieve its goals and it was extremely expensive, not in the best interests of taxpayers' dollars.

We are focusing on helping people get back to work. That is our goal because we believe that people, when they get the training they need for the jobs of tomorrow, will get the jobs of tomorrow so they can look after their families.

Employment Insurance
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, it is disgraceful. What an answer.

Recent employment figures show that the private sector is cutting thousands of jobs while it is mainly part-time jobs that are being created. Under these circumstances, it is essential to extend the pilot project that enables people living in regions with high unemployment to qualify with 840 hours instead of 910.

Does the government realize that this project is needed by communities that depend on manufacturing, the fishery or major industrial sectors that are experiencing difficulties, or does the government just not care?

Employment Insurance
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk
Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, we want to help people find jobs so that they can support their families. The best way to do that is to provide training so that they can develop the skills they need. What I find disappointing is that the NDP will not support our efforts to provide training for people. That is the disgrace.

The Economy
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Miramichi, NB

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons tonight will vote on third reading of an important part of Canada's economic action plan, the strengthening Canada's economic recovery act. Tonight all parties will have an opportunity to support jobs, growth and opportunity in Canada.

Could the Minister of Finance tell the House why it is so critical that we pass this important legislation?

The Economy
Oral Questions

December 7th, 2010 / 2:55 p.m.

Whitby—Oshawa
Ontario

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic recovery remains our government's number one priority. We must stay the course and pass Bill C-47 in order to ensure that we sustain Canada's economic recovery.

This is a recovery that has been the envy of the world, with over 440,000 jobs created and five continuous quarters of economic growth. What is the opposition's plan? Higher taxes and to kill 400,000 jobs.

Veterans Affairs
Oral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, first the Prime Minister broke his promise that he would compensate every Agent Orange victim. Then he arbitrarily denied compensation to the families of victims who died before 2006.

For the third time I will ask the same question: Will every cent of the promised $96 million go to the victims and their families?