Debates of March 7th, 2005

National Defence

[The Speaker]

The Leader of the Opposition is an experienced member of the House and he knows that referring to the absence of members is not permitted under the rules. I know he will want to comply fully with the rules in putting his questions in the House and avoid that kind of reference. Shots can be fired on every side on this kind of issue and it is not helpful to order in the proceedings when this kind of reference is made.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Agriculture

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the consequences of the Prime Minister's mismanagement of Canada-U.S. relations.

The government seemed totally unprepared for what happened last week in the U.S. courts and the U.S. senate to our cattle industry. The Prime Minister had promised Canadian producers that the American border would be open today. Well, promise made, promise broken.

Given the Prime Minister's incompetence in this crisis, is he now prepared to immediately use the budget's contingency funds to help our cattle farmers?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, that comment is absolutely ludicrous. As most Canadians know and as the hon. member should know, the U.S. administration stands firmly behind Canada's position and is working with Canada.

Unlike what the hon. member asserts, we did not go into that unprepared. In fact, in September we put forward a strategy to deal with the industry being profitable with or without a border opening.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, what is ludicrous is that we have people losing their livelihood, month after month of bungling and no action, and our farmers expect some action right now.

The minister did not make a commitment to emergency assistance. I want him to make that commitment and to acknowledge that all the opposition parties, all the provinces and all our producers believe the CAIS program is not working and that emergency funding will come outside of CAIS because it does not work and it does not deliver.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, in a take note debate in the House a couple of weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition said that quite frankly he did not understand the details of the particular issue and that he would allow others to answer. He clearly is demonstrating that.

Quite frankly, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is trying to score cheap political points as opposed to trying to deal with the issue. The reality is that $1.9 billion beyond CAIS have been invested into the cattle and beef industry in this country. As the Minister of Finance said, we stand by our industry and stand to make new investments as necessary.

National Defence

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our ambassador to the United States thought we were part of missile defence. The American ambassador said that the United States was given the impression that Canada would participate. He went on to say that part of the strain was the surprise and that the Prime Minister had given them the direct impression that he wanted to participate.

The Prime Minister says that he has no knowledge of that. It sort of sounds like testimony before the Gomery commission. Cabinet documents from last May clearly state that Canada would participate in the program. There were references to a memorandum of understanding.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House just what was in that original American proposal that he was originally prepared to sign on to?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear, both inside the House and outside, that any decision in relation to BMD would be made and only made in the best interests of Canadians. That is what we did.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it was clear as mud. He must be hiding under his desk today because last November he had his Minister of National Defence say that there would be a clear debate in the House of Commons and that the whole issue would be before the House for a vote.

There was no debate, no vote and no information before the House. Democracy denied; promise not kept.

Canadians know that the Prime Minister badly bungled that file. What Canadians do not know is what information was before the Liberal cabinet and what information was in the possession of the Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister table the American proposal so Canadians can see what he turned down?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the undertaking of the government was to have a debate in the House if an agreement was reached with the United States and that we would bring that agreement to the House.

As there was no agreement reached with the United States, there was nothing to debate in the House.

Our government receives cabinet information and we receive advice from our officials on both sides of the issue. In the end we make a sensible decision in the best interests of Canadians, which is what was done in this case. It is absolutely untruthful and inappropriate for the opposition to suggest--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

Employment Insurance

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the leaders' debate, the Prime Minister promised to eliminate the 910-hour eligibility threshold for new entrants to the work force.

But once the election was over, instead of ending this measure that discriminates particularly against young people, the Liberal government only dropped the threshold by a few hours, even though a single threshold of 360 hours would have qualified another 90,000 workers for benefits.

In terms of employment insurance, will the Prime Minister admit that his bottom line is, “promise made, the unemployed betrayed”?

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Bloc has trouble recognizing when improvements have been made to a program, just as the Prime Minister stated.

In fact, we have made an improvement: we have lowered the threshold to 840 hours for workers entering the work force for the first time. This is two weeks less than the previous requirement and means that in some areas of the country, some people who did not have access to EI will now be eligible for benefits.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when he visited Rimouski in April 2004, during the pre-election campaign, the Prime Minister said, “I want to find a solution quickly to improve the situation of seasonal workers. There have been amendments to the act and pilot projects, but it is clear that more has to be done.”

Once again, the Liberal government has given us half measures that will not eliminate the gap and all his Quebec lieutenant can find to say is “The reform is complete”.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the Liberal bottom line is, “promise made, the unemployed betrayed”?

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that the Bloc has a problem accepting the success of our national convention this weekend.

The Prime Minister has kept his word. The Government of Canada has made significant improvements to the employment insurance program. We agreed to the plan to add five weeks of benefits. Now we are basing calculations on the 14 best weeks out of 52. It was not for nothing that a spokesperson for the seasonal workers in New Brunswick hailed this announcement as a victory.

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

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members who sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities voted in favour of setting up an independent employment insurance fund. However, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development merely said that, from now on, contributions to the program would no longer exceed needs.

Considering that he dismissed out of hand the creation of an independent fund, should the Prime Minister not have once again told his party faithful, this past weekend, “Promise made, workers betrayed”?

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand they loved the theme of our national convention, which they followed with great interest. They probably share these concerns.

Not only did we give back to the Employment Insurance Commission the legislative authority to set contribution rates, we also decided that, from now on, the chief actuary will be directly accountable to the commission and will make his report public.

This is a significant improvement over the existing system. It will provide greater independence to the Employment Insurance Commission.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the minister really believed what she said, she would not refuse to meet with unemployed workers.

In the case of older workers, the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which had the support of the Liberals, recommended the implementation of the new assistance program for older workers. Even Liberal members from the Quebec caucus have been pushing for this. However, the last budget is silent on POWA.

Once again, should we not say, “Promise made, older workers betrayed”?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that when one is in the opposition one can never deliver. One can only have wishes and dreams, but will never be able to take concrete action for Canadians, let alone for Quebeckers.

The older workers program, which is currently largely run by the provinces, is being evaluated by them. Perhaps the member for Chambly—Borduas does not know it, but we are working in partnership with the provinces, precisely to try to help all our workers.

The Budget

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The Prime Minister on June 4, 2004 told students that he thought reducing tuition fees was important. Then we received a budget which has not a penny to help students with tuition fees and instead has huge corporate tax cuts. The Prime Minister was taking progressive votes and instead of doing the progressive thing and reducing tuition fees, he gave billions to banks which have profits through the roof and high interest rates.

Why did he break his promise to the students?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, progressively over several budgets we have invested heavily in this area, something like $11 billion or $12 billion altogether in various ways to advance post-secondary education, including assistance to students. We invest now about $4.7 billion every year to support post-secondary education and make access issues easier to overcome.

I am pleased to report that in this budget we put in another $1 billion to advance the cause of post-secondary education and the innovation agenda in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are billions for banks, but not a penny for the students. No wonder the Conservatives are happy with the budget, but I can say that the NDP is not.

The Prime Minister also promised to cut pollution by 20%. Promise broken. He also broke his promise on foreign aid. He has broken his promise on affordable housing.

When it comes to poor kids, he promised and voted to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, yet over a million children are living in poverty. If that is not a broken promise, what is?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, last week I was very pleased to hear the comments of representatives of the United Nations with respect to child poverty. They pointed out that in this budget the step forward we are taking on early childhood development and child care is a major advance and that the tax reductions we have included focused upon the lowest income taxpayers in the country are a major advance. These are on top of the child tax benefit, on top of the other initiatives to create jobs. They make it possible for all Canadians, including those with the lowest incomes, to enjoy an improved quality of life.

Agriculture

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the border is still closed to Canadian cattle. It is urgent that we increase slaughter capacity in Canada. Despite the promise made by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food last September, there is still no program. Even more insulting for producers, the Liberals have just promised more funds for this phantom program.

Why is the minister continuing to insult our producers by making promises he does not keep?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that the hon. member is incorrect when she says the border is closed to Canadian beef. Indeed Canadian beef continues to cross the border. It is important that producers know that continues to be the case.

In terms of slaughter capacity, from a low of 65,000 animals per week, we are now at 83,000 animals per week, a 30% increase. We have seen two new plants opened in the last few months. We will continue to assist the industry. We will make revisions as necessary to put as many resources out there as quickly as possible.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Alberta and Manitoba today announced $40 million in additional funds to encourage increased slaughter capacity. The Conservative Party called upon the government to provide incentives for growth by providing incentives for co-op investment. There was nothing in the budget.

When will the Liberals provide real incentives for investment instead of offering the sleeves off their vests?