Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2006

Employment Insurance

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the transitional boundary measures for the regions on the employment insurance map will be ending on October 7, 2006. The purpose of the transitional measures was to mitigate the effects of the last redrawing of the map, which has had a serious impact on seasonal workers in a number of regions of Quebec.

Given that the existing employment insurance scheme does not respond well to the needs of workers in the regions, will the Prime Minister undertake at least to extend the transitional measures until the map is redrawn more equitably?

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

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are certain inequities between various regions. We are waiting to make informed decisions based on the new Statistics Canada data that is coming out.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the agreement ends on October 7.

The Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has submitted its report, recommending, among other things, that the employment insurance scheme be improved. The government has flatly refused to act on those recommendations. How can the Prime Minister explain the fact that even though he has a $13 billion surplus he is still refusing to improve the employment insurance scheme, as workers and employees have been calling for for years? Is this another decision based on purely ideological principles?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all of our programs. We want to ensure the employment insurance program responds to the needs of all Canadians. We have just launched our pilot project on the five weeks and we have extended the definition of eligibility for EI compassionate care.

We will be meeting the deadlines that are necessary to ensure that all Canadians receive the benefits they need and deserve under EI.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, when the budget surplus was paid toward the debt, $2 billion came from the surplus in the employment insurance fund.

Since this has now been the case for several years, will the government admit that by using the $2 billion in surplus employment insurance money it is making the jobless pay a sizeable portion of the debt out of the benefit cuts that thousands of them are being forced to endure?

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

Mr. Speaker, a new mechanism has been put in place to minimize any surplus or loss in the EI account. We want to ensure we do everything possible to match EI revenues with EI expenditures.

Last year we had a better year than expected in our economy, so the EI claims were lower than usual, which is a good thing.

This new mechanism has only had one opportunity to be put into use. We look forward to it being reviewed again in order to best match revenues with incomes responsibly for Canadians.

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

): Mr. Speaker, the problem is not that the surpluses are being reduced, it is how they are being used. In the last 12 years, over $50 billion dollars have been diverted from the employment insurance fund.

Regions where the economy is less robust, where seasonal work is widespread, are the regions that are hardest hit by the employment insurance cuts.

How can the Government of Canada defend this kind of ideological choice when it means making the poorest people, the people who are losing their jobs and are no longer able to qualify for benefits, pay a sizeable portion of the debt?

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

Mr. Speaker, if we minimize the surplus in the EI account that means more money is available for all Canadians, fewer Canadians will need to pay taxes and it means lowering EI premiums, for example, for employers and the employees who need it so much. It also means more money in the economy, which is better for everyone.

Maher Arar

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been one full week since the public inquiry confirmed the injustices experienced by Maher Arar and his family. At the time, the member for Malpeque, then solicitor general, stood in this House time and time again and claimed that the RCMP had done no wrong. It was his responsibility to stop the illegal leaks and to speak out publicly.

Why is the government dragging its feet? Why is no one assuming ministerial responsibility for this tragic case?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. This government has done things already and it continues to do things. This government has instructed counsel to contact Mr. Arar's lawyer to begin negotiations and that contact has been made.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that the government continues to shame itself by refusing to apologize to Maher Arar and, even sadder, no one has been held accountable.

The accountability bill has provisions for a public prosecutor. Will the government commit today that the first investigation by the public prosecutor will be into possible breaches of the Security of Information Act by ministers of the former Liberal government?

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, we do support independent prosecution when violations happen in federal law, which is why it is so important that we pass the federal accountability act.

In this battle to reward accountability, we have received a good amount of support from the New Democratic Party. What we need is support from the Liberal Senate to finally pass the federal accountability bill and finally let the corrupt practices of the previous Liberal regime be a part of Canadian history.

Judicial Appointments

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the Minister of Justice appointed Bruce McDonald, a well-known Conservative fundraiser and organizer, as a federal judge. Now we learn that for 12 straight years he personally donated over $11,000 to the Reform-Alliance-Conservative Party.

The Minister of Justice has stated that he would never support judicial appointments where “who you know gets you on the bench”.

By making one of his party's top bagmen a federal judge, will the minister now admit that he has badly broken his promise?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice McDonald was already a member of the bench. He was appointed to the bench by another government. Justice McDonald distinguished himself on the bench and it was on that basis that he was chosen. He was chosen from a list compiled by the former government.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Let me get this straight, Mr. Speaker.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Ottawa South appreciates all the assistance with his supplementary question but we must be able to hear it. The hon. member for Ottawa South now has the floor.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Let me get this straight, Mr. Speaker. Now he blames Mr. Klein for the appointments.

The Minister of Justice has appointed Bruce McDonald as a federal judge knowing full well that he was a top fundraiser for the Minister of Public Safety, a top fundraiser for the Minister of Health and a top fundraiser for the Prime Minister.

Given that one of his key jobs is to uphold the ethical principles for judges and that Mr. McDonald raised funds for the Conservative Party up until 2004, will the justice minister now admit that his promise to end judicial patronage is nothing but Conservative hypocrisy?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the individual was chosen from the list by the judicial advisory committee that was put together by that former government. He made the list. In fact, that individual was appointed to the bench by a former government. I have not heard a lawyer complain about that appointment. All I have heard are accolades for that appointment, except from the member.

Government Programs

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those who know the Liberal Party know that it has never spared any effort to promote linguistic duality. And if Ottawa's francophone community has its own hospital today, it is naturally because of the community's own efforts, but also thanks to the court challenges program that the Conservative government has axed for the second time. In fact, the current federal cabinet includes several ministers who were part of the Harris government that tried to close the Montfort Hospital.

Is that why they are so small-minded and so intent on targeting minorities?

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I could tell my dear colleague from Ottawa—Vanier that the political decision not to appeal to the Supreme Court of Ontario was made when the current Minister of Health and I, in my capacity as minister responsible for francophone affairs, decided in cabinet not to file an appeal.

I was naturally very pleased to call Gisèle Lalonde and tell her that the government, the cabinet, had decided that the Montfort Hospital would remain open, in light of its importance.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they wanted to close it. Because of the program, we managed to save it. The Montfort is just one example of the usefulness of the court challenges program. There are others throughout the country.

Francophones outside of Quebec have learned from their experience that the judicial challenge process is necessary to and useful in having their rights respected. I know that the anglophone minority in Quebec shares that opinion.

Why is the government telling both francophone and anglophone minority communities that their government will not assist them in upholding their constitutional rights?

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that Canada's government has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we do not have to give grants to Liberal lawyers to get this government to do the right thing.

Let us look at what my good friend, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, said. He said, “I certainly feel overtaxed...that means a very...rigorous program review...I would look for program review within the government to pull as much savings as we can out”.

That is from the upcoming new leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

The Environment

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development confirmed that the Kyoto protocol objectives could only be met using the territorial approach and not the sectoral approach.

Now that there is no longer any doubt that the sectoral approach is ineffective, will the federal government take a step in the right direction by adopting a territorial approach whereby Quebec and the provinces will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1990 levels?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will once again reassure my colleague by stating that our plan does much more than the Kyoto protocol. Our government's priority is the health of all Quebeckers and of all Canadians. Our plan also tackles air pollution and climate change.