Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2004

Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, some looks are deliberate. He was looking directly at the Bloc Québécois when he said three times that it is dishonest to say such things. I think he was directing his comments at the Bloc without naming names.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The parliamentary secretary may continue.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, on a further point, if we look at what this department has been able to achieve across the country, I think it is very impressive. I regret that at some points we have perhaps succumbed to public pressures and changed programs that were very good.

In my part of the country, the Canadian jobs strategy helped rural economic development immensely in small communities by giving the people a leg up for their first job and by giving them the confidence to get out into the workforce. The municipalities were able to create a program, put some money into it and manage it. Businesses were part of it and HRDC, with very good management in western Nova Scotia, was able to participate with a bit of funding.

Sometimes projects worth $70,000 or $80,000 would bring in 10 workers who would get 20 weeks work during the first year. These were people who were perhaps reintegrating into the job market after a marital breakdown or sometimes they were young people on their first jobs.

However we have eliminated that program, which is unfortunate. I would like Parliament to reconsider reinstituting programs like that, where we can have better flexibility in working with the communities.

The answer is in the communities. There is no use in going to the regions in Canada to tell people what they should do; they will tell us. We could offer them a little help rather than being confessors who listen to the community's problems. We are financial partners who can provide 20%, 25% or 30% of the funding for a product. Sometimes this can be the leverage that makes the difference between moving forward with a project or not.

In our communities this department has helped people with very good ideas—workers or tradespeople—become entrepreneurs. If they have a product they can manufacture, they can open a small factory or a plant. To do so they go to the department, and we help them with their salary for the first year. We remove the risk so they can continue to pay their mortgage and live. We support these types of projects because after seven or eight years they provide jobs for 10, 15 or 20 families. Some go broke, but that is the nature of entrepreneurship. Such is the risk of being an entrepreneur. Not all entrepreneurs are successful, but we need people to take risks for the good of Canada.

I want to congratulate the government on this initiative of putting more emphasis on literacy and training, early childhood, child care and on the entire social aspect the federal government has been working on in partnership with the communities and the provinces.

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

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today as a follow-up to my oral question on October 15 regarding the hepatitis C compensation restrictions. At that point in time, the Liberal government reiterated its desire to keep thousands of hepatitis C victims from receiving compensation. Why? Simply because they did not get infected on the right day.

This policy was beyond simple discrimination. It was a blatant example of political indifference toward those who are often too sick to fight for themselves. When members of this House voted against extending the compensation to all victims, some members of the Liberal Party shed crocodile tears in an attempt to show some sort of sympathy for the thousands of innocent victims.

Instead, all they did was show how cold-hearted and spineless they were when it came to standing up for their constituents and their convictions. Their hunger to remain in control of Parliament to feed the Liberal appetite for power proved to be the key to their integrity. Amazingly, many of them looked their electorate in the eye and told them they did the right thing. Unfortunately, many voters mistakenly believed them.

Nonetheless, several years later we find ourselves at today.

A few weeks ago, the health committee, dominated by opposition members, discussed having the matter raised again. The health committee again brought this to the floor of the House of Commons. The Liberals once again stalled at making the right decision. Now, to deflect criticism, they are starting another consultation with victims. This is not because they suddenly got a heart transplant themselves, but more because of the fact that they have not used the compensation money that was set aside.

We know there is enough money in the original compensation fund to compensate all victims. Failure to do so before now is inexcusable. All the delay has done is deny compensation to thousands of victims who died before today.

This government will likely take another few months to do the right thing and in the meantime more will die. Yes, they will die. Hepatitis C kills and this government tried to pretend that it does not. It failed to protect the national blood supply, which killed Canadians.

Today we have a much safer blood supply, but a lack of vigilance over the safety of the system could cause problems again. This government has shown a preference to protect itself before it protects the general public. Canadians need to be made aware of this before they trust the Liberals to oversee their safety.

We in the Conservative Party have been calling for fair and complete compensation for all innocent victims of the tainted blood scandal. We have always said that those unknowingly infected with hepatitis C should not have to suffer anymore than they have already.

Today the health minister indicated that he will discuss compensation for the excluded group of victims. Last time the lawyers got involved, it cost $60 million. I am sure the same will be true this time too. I hope the minister will make sure the victims get the compensation they deserve and I hope he makes sure this does not become a financial boost for the legal community.

If the minister can find a way to minimize legal costs and delays and get compensation to all those who deserve it, I will applaud his efforts. If he does not, I will not hesitate to tell every hepatitis C victim that the Liberals still care more about their party's survival than their survival.

On a final note, I would like to thank my Conservative colleagues and those from the other opposition parties for continuing to stand up for what is right. A special thank goes to Dr. Grant Hill, a former--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I failed to find a question in the venomous history lesson that we heard, one-sided and often less than completely factual. I am watching my language to stop you from having to rule on a point of order.

To say that there would be risk taken, that the federal government is protecting itself rather than protecting Canadians, the assumption of which is of no surprise, is disingenuous. We have the best blood supply in the world. We do the utmost. We work with all provinces and everybody involved to ensure that we have the best.

When was this problem? I was not in the House when the problem occurred. This party formed the government in 1993. The problem with the blood supply was probably before or around that time. The party, for which she only has the courage to use half the name, was probably involved at the time. I do not say that it was protecting itself rather than the public. I think it did the best it could with the information it had at the time. I do not believe that one member of the House, now or past, would put Canadians at risk in such a way.

Now the fund is an interesting concept. The fund does not belong to the federal government. The federal government does not have the power. It is a trust fund administered by the court and handled by a trustee. It probably has an actuarial surplus. I was a member of the committee, like the member. We unanimously voted, in light of a probable surplus in the fund, that we consider widening the scope of compensation.

She says that the government has done nothing. We have spent over $525 million providing services to people outside of the 1986-90 window. We made sure that the provinces had the capability. We made sure that the research was being done to avoid the problem. We made sure the communities were there. Luckily there has been some improvement in medicine and improvement in the way these people are being treated and surviving. There have been fewer victims than was forecasted at the time.

The minister agrees with the committee, as he agrees with the members of caucus and the Prime Minister. He said during his campaign that we must review that situation. He announced today, with our full support, that he was looking at the options for compensation. I am quite confident that we will see that in the short term.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, as someone who used to work for the Canadian blood system, I look at his answer in faith that he will ensure that the system is properly funded so we can properly protect Canadians. I know there is a concern in certain areas about how the funding will go to that.

I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health that I feel all victims should have been compensated with the money that was put in the trust fund. It belongs to them. It should be given to all victims of this. It has been overwhelmingly stated in the House over and over that the money should go to the deserving people and it should be done now. It should not be allowed to sit there any longer.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, first, as a concerned Canadian and a member of Parliament, and through you to a former employee who participated in the blood system, if anybody has any information to suggest that there might be questions about the security of the blood system, it is of utmost interest to the Canadian government, to the Department of Health and I am sure to the public health officer.

The government has named the first public health officer in the country. We want to ensure and we believe to the best of our understanding that we have a very safe blood supply. It is the responsibility of anybody who thinks there might be problems to report them so we can investigate and, if necessary, correct them.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about parental leave. I asked questions of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on several occasions, but his answers are not informative enough.

When asked about parental leave and negotiations with Quebec, he keeps repeating, “We are negotiating. I have had discussions with my colleagues, and you should not worry, because everything is going along fine”.

But we would like things to move much further. This agreement was signed on May 21, 2004. It was supposed to be a historical agreement. The figures were the only remaining point to settle. That is why we thought the agreement would be signed right after the election.

The Liberals made a big deal about that agreement during the campaign. Just before the campaign, they announced they had reached an agreement in principle, and figures were the only thing that was not settled. Where are the agreement and the figures? We know a decision of the Quebec court of appeal on January 27, 2004 was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. That was after the election.

There is thus a threat hanging over the Quebec government's intentions of going forward with a parental leave better adapted to Quebec's own needs and realities. Consequently, we would have liked the minister to be a little more clear and precise. In Quebec, we would like to have parental leave that reflects the realities of Quebec.

I would like to give you a few examples of the realities of Quebec. With respect to the part of the EI fund that will be used to finance parental leave-- because this is where the money will come from--we would like to ensure that the atypical workers will be taken into consideration. We all know that there are people who do not qualify for EI benefits because they do not contribute to the fund. These workers are also part of those people for whom Quebec would like to see actions taken.

Parental leave in Quebec reflects reality: a maximum insurable period of 50 weeks, $52,500. This is Option A, which means 70% of the wages for the first 25 weeks and 55% for the last 25 weeks. We all know that Ottawa wants to spread the benefits over 50 weeks, $39,000, or 50% of the wages.

Why should we have that kind of variation? This is because, often, the parental leave is not taken in full. Indeed, who can afford a whole year of parental leave? We wanted this to better reflect the circumstances experienced by Quebec families.

Again, will the parental leave take into account circumstances in Quebec? The debate is not over and there is no proposal on the table. As we know, this is a project with Canada-wide goals, once again, and there also is, in the qualifying period, an approach that differs from the one that Quebec favours.

We would not want to see a qualifying period, that is a two-week penalty, before one receives parental leave benefits. The federal government, in its project, proposes a two-week qualifying period. For example, when a family needs employment insurance benefits, because of the lost wages owing to a pregnancy, why should there be a two-week penalty for someone to be entitled to parental leave?

This is an important debate. The stakes are high. However, we feel that the federal government is dragging its feet about this great historic promise that was announced.

I remember the foreign affairs minister saying, during the election campaign, “I hope this will help us in the election”. We should stop making this an election issue. It is now time to work hard on this proposal that Quebec is waiting for. The very reason for our presence here is to remind this government of its duties, following its promises in the election campaign.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, federal and provincial officials continue to meet and discuss Quebec's proposed parental insurance plan. While neither the member opposite nor I play a part in these discussions, I am sure that she could appreciate the details that need to be worked out between the two governments.

I am sure she will recognize, for example, that the agreement requires a financial mechanism for reducing EI premiums for employees and employers in Quebec so as to reflect the savings from no longer providing parental and maternity benefits in the province of Quebec. The Government of Canada has put in place a national system for maternity and parental benefits, and has been providing maternity benefits for more than 30 years and parental benefits for more than a decade.

There is a level of technical expertise that simply cannot be acquired by signing an agreement. That is why both the Canadian and Quebec governments agreed to a realistic timeline of February 2005 to finalize the agreement in principle. It also bears mentioning that the Government of Quebec has targeted the beginning of 2006 for the implementation of its provincial parental benefits program.

Finally, and I know the member is aware of this, the minister has shared with the House that he met with his counterpart in the Quebec government only a few weeks ago. They were both pleased with the progress of their discussion.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe we were told during the election campaign that the program would only be in place in 2006. It was to be implemented in the very near future. We only had to agree on the numbers and that was not supposed to take long.

I would like to remind the member who just spoke and sits with me on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities that it is a good example. Setting up a Canada-wide program is no easy task.

In the meantime we are lagging behind in the social development and support area, particularly in Quebec. Quebec has long wanted to put in place parental leave. But we have to wait. Two years is a long time in the life of a family. In the meantime many parents cannot receive the parental benefits that would more adequately meet their needs.

I would like to remind the House that in Quebec we are starting to really understand what fiscal imbalance is all about. Its means forever having to ask the federal government for help. Quebec does not have the money to--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, it is the Government of Quebec that is proposing that the program start in the year 2006, not the federal government.

The extension of parental benefits is about investing in our future. These benefits allow working parents to spend time with their child during the critical first year of life, when parental involvement is so important. Since January 2001 parents have had the flexibility they need to stay home with their baby for up to one year. We are pleased that our efforts to improve support to working Canadian parents are making a difference.

As we committed in the Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada will continue to review the employment insurance program to ensure that it remains well suited for the needs of all of Canada's workforce.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rose in the House of Commons some days ago to pose a question to the government with respect to the Prime Minister's direct involvement in the sponsorship scandal. It is now clear, with the evidence that has come out, that the Prime Minister was intimately involved in securing contracts and other rewards for his very close friends and supporters. The evidence is just astounding. It is ongoing. I have page after page that indicates the Prime Minister was clearly implicated in this program.

When I asked that question, the public works minister stood in the House and told us that he could not answer any questions because the Gomery commission was looking into it. The last time I checked, there was no such rule indicating that the Prime Minister could not reveal his involvement in awarding contracts to his friends merely because a commission happened to be studying the question at the very same time. As a result, I submitted an application for an intervention during adjournment proceedings.

The problem is that the government engages in a degree of secrecy that is really unprecedented in Canadian history. I can give another example. Located in my constituency is a major building that would be well suited, according to former ministers in the Liberal government, to house the Department of National Defence. It is the JDS Uniphase building which is largely vacated by that company. The idea of moving DND to that location was discussed and supported by numerous members on that side of the House of Commons before the last election. It was a promise, effectively, that the Liberals made to the constituents in my area.

I asked the Minister of Public Works of the status of that very issue in committee the other day. He refused to answer what his government's plan was with respect to the future location of the Department of National Defence. This is the ongoing secrecy that we see on the other side of the floor.

I have been advocating that the JDS Uniphase building would be a perfect location to consolidate the disparate groups that form the Department of National Defence here in the National Capital Region. It is only fair that we get clear answers on where those deliberations are, and what studies have been done to ascertain the overall effectiveness of such a move both in cost and practicality, but also in security.

These are important questions that the government has failed time and time again to answer. Just as with the sponsorship scandal, Liberals have resorted to their old tactics of secrecy and a failure to be transparent with the voting and tax paying public.

I wonder if the hon. Minister of Public Works would stand and answer my question directly, or perhaps he will call on one of his subordinates to do so for him, and tell us clearly right here and now, have there been any cost effectiveness studies on the concept of moving the Department of National Defence to the JDS Uniphase building in south Nepean?

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member for Nepean—Carleton. It is important that members of the House and Canadians as a whole understand how determined the Prime Minister and the government are to get to the bottom of the matter.

I want to remind everyone of the countless actions the government has taken, especially on the sponsorship program.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

There were many actions, that is true.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the new member is finished or not. As a new member he is very quick to respond while someone else is speaking. I am surprised and disappointed in his actions.

Let me remind the House that the Prime Minister's first act when he was first appointed last December was to cancel the sponsorship program. Please understand that. He cancelled the sponsorship program.

Minutes after the Auditor General tabled her report, the Prime Minister set up a number of actions to ensure that they went into play and that a quick response was being taken.

Some of the measures included an independent commission of inquiry headed by Justice Gomery. I realize that sometimes the opposition does not want to let the Gomery commission do its work, but it has to do its work. It has to hear all the evidence.

The special counsel for financial recovery is well underway. We should be hearing more about it in the next number of months. There is the whistleblower legislation, measures to strengthen the audit committees for crown corporations, possible extension of the access to information for crown corporations, and reviews on changes to the governance of crown corporations. These are some of the actions that were taken immediately.

Let me remind the House that the RCMP continues to look into various matters. Charges have been laid and the RCMP will follow every lead, wherever it may lead. Last February, following the tabling of the Auditor General's report, parliamentary committees had yet to be struck.

The public accounts committee was struck immediately before the rest of the committees and the government cooperated fully with the committee's work. In fact, testimony filled documents more than three and a half feet in heigth. There were cabinet documents dating back 10 years. Does that look like we were trying to hide information and not being transparent? All that was available to the committee, for those who wanted to read it.

The Information Commissioner, in his recent report to Parliament, lauded the Prime Minister for early moves to boost transparency. The Prime Minister is working hard to ensure things are transparent. The commissioner stated that there were early and positive signs that the government would be sufficiently self-confident, courageous and honest enough to confront head-on the attitude of secrecy.

I understand that Canadians are outraged and so are we. The Gomery commission will, I am sure, get to the bottom of things. There were 178 calls in the House by members opposite for a public inquiry. This was done. The Gomery commission will get to the bottom of everything that was brought forward. If the member has any additional information, he should forward it to the Gomery commission.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Madam Chair, what an astounding example of a failure to address the question posed to the member. In fact, he was stuck on the last scandal. I was talking about the next scandal which is the government's refusal to come clean on its plans with respect to the location of the Department of National Defence.

Instead of answering that question, the member went straight into a pre-written document clearly prepared for him by backroom Liberal strategists, whose job it is to defend the reputation and enhance the political interests of the Liberal Party.

I return to the question that I posed. What studies have been done to assess the financial liability, the strategic security, and the overall practicality of moving the Department of National Defence or any other government department to the JDS Uniphase building in south Nepean?

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Department of Public Works and Government Services addresses the marketplace on an ongoing basis . There are studies going on all the time. In fact, there are studies going on right now concerning members in the West Block and how to make changes there and move people into new areas. Those market studies are going on all the time. The member wants to blow up the studies to a bigger, inaccurate thing. He is not stating the facts.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services expressed to him very clearly on previous questions exactly what public works does to study the marketplace. It studies the marketplace in both Ontario and Quebec to make sure that we have people on a 75:25 ratio. Those studies are going on all the time. The member should learn that those studies are going on all the time.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

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 6:58 p.m.)