Debates of Dec. 4th, 2012

Government Services

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the cuts the government has chosen to make typically hurt low-income Canadians the worst. For them, vital front line services are eviscerated, but there is more. There is a bizarre attack on public health and safety, maritime search and rescue, emergency preparedness, environmental science, habitat protection, food safety, product labelling and aboriginal health. None of these cuts are in the so-called back office. They are all front line services that keep Canadians safe.

Why do the Conservatives let their financial incompetence impair public health and safety?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, we have dedicated considerable resources, in fact, growing resources to health and safety issues. We made sure we ring-fenced those in terms of our budget reviews to ensure we were delivering excellent services to Canadians. We are transferring funds to the provinces on health care.

That is our record. We will not abide by the opposition members who continue to vote against budgets that have excellent programs for Canadians. That is our dedicated approach to growing jobs in our economy. That is our approach to economic growth and opportunity. The opposition members keep voting against it.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 27 days, it will be 2013 and Canadians are clearly fearful about the year ahead.

Despite inheriting a $13 billion surplus and a shrinking debt, six years of Conservative incompetence have caused the debt to balloon to over $600 billion. The Conservatives have now spent the taxes that our grandchildren will need to pay while slashing vital services, such as EI, pensions and veterans services.

Will the Conservatives please make a New Year's resolution to stop attacking vulnerable families through reckless service cuts and stop kicking the little guy?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, today we are trying to fight opposition motions to block Canadians trying to save for their retirement, to close tax loopholes, to build the Windsor-Detroit bridge to create jobs and growth in the province of Ontario, to help 500,000 small businesses create more jobs and to help the registered disability savings plan. Opposition members are all against these fine measures.

Employment Insurance

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources' numbers simply do not hold water.

Currently, only one-third of those who appeal an employment insurance decision get a hearing within the 30-day time period. The minister's solution is to reduce the number of people holding the hearings from 700 to 39 and to introduce a process that will include twice as many steps. Then she claims that this will speed things up. Does she take people for fools?

Why is the minister making the process more complex?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. However, it is true that the current system is not serving Canadians as well as we would like. That is exactly why we have to change the system.

Specialists will be working full time, whereas now, they are only working part time. They will work full time to serve Canadians and to ensure that claims are processed more quickly and efficiently.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the current system is too slow because the board of referees is short-staffed. Service Canada is having the same problem, which is causing unreasonable delays in processing times.

The minister is mocking workers who are paying for a service that they simply are not receiving. This is not her money; it is workers' money.

Why not invest in human resources instead of coming up with complicated solutions that simply do not work?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is their system that is not working. The hon. member has just demonstrated that very clearly. That is why we need to change it and that is why we are changing it.

Instead of having three part-time people review a claim, we will have one full-time specialist. That should improve the efficacy. It should improve the quality and consistency of the judgments as well. We are changing the system that needs fixing so that it will serve Canadians better and faster.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the minister will say anything to distract people from the mess that she has made of EI.

Her department is not even meeting its own service standards. One in four unemployed are not getting their EI application processed in 28 days. Two out of three calls to EI call centres are not being answered on time. Now we learn that two out of three workers who appeal do not get a hearing within 30 days.

When will the minister take responsibility and fix the problem that she created?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing.

As I just explained, the current system is not working and that is exactly why we are changing it. By having full-time people deal with the cases, we will ensure that Canadians have their appeals heard more quickly, that there will be a higher consistency in the decisions and that there will better quality service because of better information.

We are trying to improve it but every step we take is opposed by the NDP.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the new social security tribunal is part of the Conservative agenda to gut services to unemployed Canadians.

Let us do the math. There used to be 700 board members and now there will only be 39. Delays will get worse. The system will be less fair.

Instead of demonizing the unemployed, why will the minister not do the right thing and give people the benefits that they themselves have paid for.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We are streamlining the process to make it faster, more efficient, more effective and of higher quality.

The question is why the NDP will not support the budget that will help improve things for Canadians by extending the small business hiring tax credit to create jobs so that people do not need EI, and to help improve the registered disability savings plan for those people who need that for their future security. Why will the NDP not support those efforts to help needy Canadians?

Infrastructure

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bridge to strengthen trade bill will ensure the successful and timely construction of one of Canada's most important infrastructure projects, a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

This legislation is critical as it would provide certainty to the private sector this project will not be delayed by lawsuits from a certain billionaire. Shockingly, the NDP and the MP for Windsor West who should know better are putting politics before progress and have introduced a motion to delete this from Bill C-45 and stop this bridge from moving forward.

Would n the minister explain to this House and to the member for Windsor West the importance of voting for Bill C-45 tonight?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the new bridge will create thousands of jobs and investment opportunities along the Detroit-Windsor corridor. The bridge to strengthen trade bill would ensure that this happens in a timely manner.

I urge the member for Windsor West and his party to stand up for Canadians, put politics aside and vote with us as we move forward on delivering a new bridge for Canadians to cross the busiest the trade corridor.

It is really important for our country's economy.

The Environment

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the monster budget bill, one of the more troubling aspects of this bill are the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

With no rhyme nor reason, the Conservatives have stripped away protection from thousands of lakes and rivers across Canada. Nova Scotians were shocked to learn that, along with many other rivers, the Shelburne Heritage River will no longer be protected under this act.

How is it that millionaires in Muskoka get lake protection but Nova Scotian rivers do not? Are there no Nova Scotian Conservatives over there who will stand up to this cherry-picking and this favouritism?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my department has consulted with every province and territory on the list of waterways and none of them had any concerns with the list. It appears that only the opposition wants officials to review thousands of applications when over 90% of them do not have any treaties on navigation. It is creating a backlog for absolutely nothing. The department will continue to care about the issues of navigation when there are concerns.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities can tell himself what he wants, but the fact of the matter is that while the Conservatives are protecting lakes for the wealthy friends of the President of the Treasury Board, the Châteauguay River will go unprotected, and be at the mercy of unscrupulous developers.

In addition to its ecological importance, the river played a crucial role in the Conservatives' favourite moment in history, the War of 1812. The Battle of Châteauguay culminated in a triumphant British victory over the Americans.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to adequately protect this river and recognize its historical importance?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this is another good example of how the NDP gets everything wrong. It is strictly a matter of boating. Of course, we recognize the historical importance of this river. Scientists who have conducted research on shipping and transporting important freight by boat—which has always been crucial to our country's economy—determined which waterways would be used for this purpose. We are not talking about the waterways that were travelled down by canoe in 1812.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we are spreading the news regarding the Conservatives' policies.

Quebec is a magnificent land of lakes and rivers.

This week, I had the opportunity to go to the splendid Mégantic Lake, and the magnificent Chaudière River, two waterways that will no longer be protected due to the Conservatives irresponsible actions.

The members for Mégantic—L'Érable and Beauce know how important these waterways are to the region.

Why have these members allowed the President of the Treasury Board to protect the lakes of the rich and famous without regard for their own constituents?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, once again, these are baseless remarks. Has the member ever seen any big boats go down the Chaudière Falls? He really does not understand boating. It is not about sharing a canoe, but about vessels that transport freight in containers. Has he seen many of those on the Chaudière River? He is woefully unfamiliar with his region. This is about boating. Nothing else.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the rivers and lakes in my region of northern Ontario are tourist magnets and an integral part of the local tourism market, and the Conservatives are stripping their protections.

On top of hampering that economy, the Conservatives are also yanking protection from tourist-rich lakes surrounding Sioux Lookout and the historically significant Albany River in the riding of Kenora, the Boundary Waters, the Seine River, all bodies of water where people, boats and ships navigate.

Why does northern Ontario not deserve the same protections as millionaires in Muskoka, and why is no one on that side speaking up?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has always been and remains about navigation and navigation only. In fact, the amendments focus on measures to ensure that is still the case. It will not affect the government's protection that any other department still has, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and many others. Why are the lakes in northern Ontario important in his riding and not in the riding of the President of the Treasury Board. There is navigation on the lakes of members on this side of the House.

Search and Rescue

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, last May, just days after the Conservatives closed the maritime rescue sub-centre in St. John's, a medical emergency call off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador was rerouted to Italy. The Prime Minister misled the House claiming that there was “no change to procedure” and that calls were only rerouted to Rome as a back up.

We now know that is not true. Internal emails revealed that the procedure was in fact permanently changed and that medical calls were to be answered first in Rome, not Canada.

Why did the Prime Minister put seafarers' lives at risk and try to cover it up?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly reject the premise of that question. I can assure the hon. member that marine medical calls are being answered in Canada by Canadians.

National Defence

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, General Lawson tells us that the statement of operational requirements for the new fighter aircraft has not been modified to date. This statement is so biased that there is only one option: the F-35. Yet the minister is telling us that all options are on the table as far as the new fighter jet is concerned. The government is contradicting itself. We have lost confidence; it is a real fiasco.

Will the government submit a statement of operational requirements for the new fighter aircraft to the National Research Council of Canada, as it did for the search and rescue aircraft?