Debates of Jan. 31st, 2005

Sponsorship Program

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was bad enough when opposition members were commenting on testimony that had already occurred at the Gomery commission but now they want to comment on testimony that they hope to occur before the Gomery commission.

Whether or not the testimony has or has not occurred, whether or not they are predicting or hoping that particular testimony will occur, it is improper for the opposition to be commenting on testimony before the Gomery commission. We should support the Gomery commission, as is the case with the government, and wait for his analysis. We look forward to his report, as do all Canadians.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given that the Prime Minister is going to testify at the Gomery Commission, can the Minister of Public Works give us very clear assurance that the government's lawyers will not object in any way to the Prime Minister being asked about the Earnscliffe scandal, in which he is personally involved?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, first, the Prime Minister has said from the beginning that he would be totally willing to appear and testify before Gomery. He has said that from the beginning and will be doing exactly that.

I do not understand the logic of the opposition members commenting on what they believe could, may be or perhaps will be or will not be testimony before the Gomery commission. I think they ought to wait as opposed to guessing as to what the Gomery testimony may be and what the response by counsel may be to that testimony.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to be clear, once and for all.

When we question the Prime Minister about his ties to Earnscliffe and his interventions here in this House, we are told it is up to the Gomery Commission. It is not specifically part of the direct mandate of the Gomery Commission, and there is no guarantee that the government's or the Prime Minister's lawyers will not object to his answering these questions.

What I am asking today, what we want to know is whether you will object, yes or no, to the Prime Minister being questioned on this—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, once again, questions as to the suitability of testimony will be resolved within the auspices of the Gomery commission. That is completely consistent with the independence of a judicial inquiry. We know the Conservative Party does not understand the independence of a judicial inquiry or in fact the Constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We know members of the Bloc do understand some of those issues but I am disappointed that they do not understand the importance in this case of the independence of a judicial inquiry.

The Environment

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first question period of 2005, the year in which pollution reduction was supposed to have happened by 20% according to Liberal promises. Instead, pollution is up by 20% and we are moving to the back of the pack globally.

The NDP has presented a plan to meet the Kyoto targets on time according to the international rules that have been set out.

Will the Prime Minister stand today and indicate that this country will meet the Kyoto targets on time, or will this be another Liberal broken promise?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government takes the whole Kyoto agenda very seriously. This is one of the most important international agreements that globalization has brought forth. With the Russian ratification, what it now says essentially is that the international community has as its goal a major environmental target and all countries must do everything they possibly can to ensure that it succeeds. Canada will certainly do its part.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

For the record, Mr. Speaker, let it be said that the Prime Minister has refused to stand and indicate that Canada will meet the Kyoto targets on time. It is no wonder. The government has refused to take on the biggest polluters. It has refused to set out mandatory emission standards. It likes to see Canadians do their part but it is not willing to do its part.

Will the Prime Minister commit that the timelines will be met?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the commitment is in the throne speech and it is very clear. The Government of Canada will respect its commitment to the Kyoto protocol on climate change in a way that produces long term and enduring results while maintaining a strong and growing economy. This is the commitment that will be done.

Finance

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last fall the minority government agreed to amend its throne speech to include a proposal for tax relief for low and middle income Canadians but no sooner had it made that commitment than it started to backpedal away and say that it was a very low priority.

How can Parliament be expected to support any budget that reneges on its own throne speech?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, I am now deep in the midst of prebudget consultations. I have had the opportunity to meet him and the finance critics for the Bloc Québécois and for the NDP. All of their views and representations will be taken into account as reflected in the throne speech debate, as reflected in the finance committee's report and as reflected in the debate that is happening in the House today and tomorrow. All of that will be very carefully weighed and respected.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the finance minister were sincere about that he and the Prime Minister would not be downplaying the need for tax relief in Canada today.

The truth is that Canadians have not seen their take home pay rise in 15 years and yet the government is still trying to weasel out of its throne speech commitment to cut taxes for low and middle income Canadians.

If the Liberals cannot be trusted to keep their commitment to low and middle income Canadians, how can they be trusted on anything at all?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we have cut taxes in every budget since 1997. In the course of the last election, we made a number of commitments to Canadians: commitments on health care, equalization, child care, cities, defence, foreign affairs and a number of other matters. Canadians can be assured the government will keep all of its promises.

Technology Partnerships Canada

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there has been another revelation about the mother of all corporate welfare programs: Technology Partnerships Canada.

It was revealed today that the government has recovered less than one-fifth of its promised repayments and that after nine years has only recouped less than 5% of the $2 billion it has given to profitable, private sector companies.

Why has the government failed to recover the subsidies? When will the government stop wasting taxpayer dollars in this fashion?

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I think every research study that has been done by independent, arm's length research organizations indicate that we have a technology deficit in Canada. We are not doing enough research and development in Canada. Technology Partnerships Canada is a way to encourage small and medium size firms.

Incidentally, 88% of TPC contributions go to small and medium size companies. That is the way to ensure the Canadian economy maximizes its potential.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, throwing taxpayer money away will do nothing to address the technology deficit in this country.

The fact is that everything the government has said about this program has proven to be false. It put forward absolutely bogus job creation figures which it later retracted. It said that this program would recover far more than the 100% that was given. In fact, it is recovering less than 5% after nine years. Three industry ministers in a row, including the present industry minister, promised a full review, which has not been delivered on.

When will the government deliver on the promise to review this program? When will it finally honour taxpayer money, as it should?

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we are doing the review and we will make it available as soon as we are satisfied that we have it right.

We have said continuously that the technology partnerships program is based on long term recovery of investments in technology; as much as 20 years. It will not happen in five years. We are not a chartered bank. We are not out there to make profits off small companies. We are out there to incent the adoption of technologies.

Employment Insurance

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when she was sworn in, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development contended that a fundamental reform of EI was out of the question.

Given that the restrictions to EI mean that only 45% of those who lose their job qualify for benefits, does the minister intend to take advantage of the budget to fundamentally reform the EI program and restore these figures to an acceptable level?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I intend to act on the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne that the employment insurance program must continually adjust itself to the labour market and the needs of workers. This is what we are currently doing.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities signed a unanimous report condemning the misuse of the unemployment insurance fund, which has hit older workers, women and the young the hardest.

Does the minister intend to reconsider her position and establish an independent employment insurance fund, as recommended unanimously by this committee?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we have received this report from the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I think it contains eight recommendations concerning the employment insurance program. These recommendations are currently under consideration. We will respond to them, as required under the standing orders of this House, in due course.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, workers were promised a number of times by the current Prime Minister, especially before the election, an employment insurance reform. This is an election promise that was never fulfilled by the Liberal government.

Since the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is unanimous in recommending the creation of an independent fund, will the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development act on that recommendation in the next budget, as pledged in the throne speech?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we intend to follow up on the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne to evaluate the employment insurance program, so that it reflects the needs of the labour market and, therefore, those of employers and workers.

In addition to the report of the parliamentary committee, we have also received suggestions from several members on this side of the House, from our caucus. We are currently looking at these suggestions and we intend to make the necessary adjustments to the program.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that the vote in committee was unanimous, which means members from both sides of the House. A number of our fellow citizens feel that now is the time to act and that this budget provides a unique opportunity to correct the injustices of which they are the victims.

Will the minister finally agree to lower the eligibility threshold to allow seasonal workers, women and young people to get real protection from the employment insurance program?