Debates of Nov. 1st, 2006

Human Resources and Skills Development—Main Estimates 2006-07

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

As Dr. Chris Sarlo of the Nipissing University School of Business and Economics has noted--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Let us let the hon. parliamentary secretary finish her remarks.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Chair, as Dr. Chris Sarlo of the Nipissing University, school of business and economics, has noted, the precipitous decline in senior poverty to extremely low levels is clearly one of Canada's great success stories, thanks to the Conservatives again.

Canada's new government wants all seniors to receive benefits to which they are entitled. Consequently, the Government of Canada has made a concerted and ongoing effort to inform seniors of their GIS eligibility. For instance, direct mailing and application forms, information campaigns and partnerships have been used to contact vulnerable seniors who may be difficult to reach. Likewise, in the past four years, nearly half a million preprinted applications have been sent to seniors who have not applied for the guaranteed income supplement and who might be eligible. As a result, approximately a quarter of a million seniors have been added to the guaranteed income supplement rolls.

Furthermore, in budget 2006 Canada's new government increased the maximum amount of eligible pension income that can be claimed under the pension income credit, from $1,000 to $2,000, effective for the 2006 and subsequent taxation years. This increase, the first since 1975, will directly benefit 2.7 million seniors receiving qualifying pension income and completely removing 85,000 pensioners from the tax rolls.

Moving forward, we continue to work on the creation of a seniors council that would be instrument in helping Canada's new government meet the challenges and opportunities of an aging population.

Through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Government of Canada plays an important role in helping seniors access and maintain the safe and affordable housing critical to ensuring they remain active members of the community. Moreover, we acknowledge many seniors want to remain in their homes as they grow older. One program that helps seniors to continue living independently in their homes is CMHC's home adaptations for seniors' independence. This program helps homeowners and landowners pay for minor home adaptations, such as handrails and lever handles on doors.

CMHC also provides broader support to assist Canadians in need of housing to acquire homes that are safe, decent and affordable. Under the residential rehabilitation assistance program, or RRAP, financial assistance is offered to low income households to improving their housing conditions. In April 2006 Canada's new government renewed funding for RRAP, along with several related housing renovation and adaptation programs, at a cost of $128.1 million.

Another key component of CMHC's assisted housing efforts is directed toward the needs of aboriginal people, both on and off reserves. Through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and CMHC, roughly $261 million a year is provided to address the housing needs of aboriginal peoples. These funds support the construction of about 2,300 new units, the renovation of some 3,300 units and ongoing subsidies for about 25,000 units of existing rental housing.

All these programs strive to assist some of the Canadians most in need. These programs make our communities better places to live, work, learn, grow and to raise our families.

Before I conclude my remarks, I will address an issue that is becoming increasingly important, and that is caregiving.

As the former official opposition families and caregivers critic in the previous Parliament, this issue was of particular interest to me. Our aging population means that more and more Canadians in the coming years will join the nearly one million Canadians who already serve as caregivers for chronically ill family members or friends.

Canada's new government recognizes and respects the intense emotional and physical demands that caregiving involves. It also respects the tremendous contribution these often invisible heroes make to Canadian society.

Among the supports offered to such caregivers is the compassionate care benefit. A program introduced under employment insurance in 2004, this benefit enables eligible Canadians to provide care or support to a gravely ill or dying family member without the fear of jeopardizing their economic security.

Eligible workers have access to up to six weeks of EI income benefits when they take a temporary absence from work to provide such an essential care. However, soon after its introduction it became apparent there were certain deficiencies with the benefit, chiefly, the provision which restricted access based on outdated notions of who qualified as a caregiver. Despite the efforts of myself and many of my Conservative colleagues, especially the member from Langley, in pressuring for a revised definition of a caregiver that would allow the terminally ill to name an individual of their choice, the former Liberal government steadfastly refused.

I am proud to report that within months of taking office Canada's new government took swift action to immediately implement the necessary regulatory change to expand access to this benefit. Because of our actions, no longer is the eligibility restricted. The terminally ill now have the freedom to name the caregiver of their choice.

This change demonstrates that Canada's new government has placed on supporting caregivers. Indeed VON Canada has stated that it represents an important step in the area of caregiving, recognizing the modern family by extending to those who can claim the benefit. CARP, Canada's Association for the Fifty Plus, applauded this very welcome reform that will benefit millions of Canadians who are unpaid caregivers.

To conclude, will the minister comment on what action she is taking to ensure that human resources and social development programs provide value for money? Why does the minister believe that taxpayers expect our government to be accountable to Canadians?

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

Mr. Chair, there are a lot of aspects to social development and caregiving. I guess in some ways that is what our entire department is about. It is about taking care of Canadians, particularly when they cannot take care of themselves.

I was very pleased when we were able to announce, as one of the first things this government did, that we would expand the definition of who was eligible to be a caregiver to a terminally ill person in this country. The way the program was set up before we took office was that it had to be an immediate family member. What we said was that in today's world, all too often, people are not near family anymore. They have moved away. Perhaps people never married. There are no kids nearby who can help out.

We expanded the definition to include anyone that the caregiver chose to treat like family. Now those individuals can collect up to six weeks of employment insurance benefits while they are helping care for their friend or family member. That is a good thing. That is a very compassionate thing to do. That is one example of a lot of initiatives that the government is undertaking.

We are helping seniors in so many ways, one being with the new announcement today that we are increasing the age allowance for their tax situation. We are also allowing pension splitting, which is going to help two million Canadians right across the country. I believe that is what the number is. That is huge. Right across this country, they are going to better off because of that.

We are looking at a number of ways to help students. I spoke about several of them just a few minutes ago.

I also spoke about what we are doing for older workers who have been suddenly displaced through no fault of their own, displaced because their company was shut down, because of global market situations or for whatever reasons. We are going to be helping them, not to sit at home and feel that they are not contributing members of society, but to get them retrained and re-skilled and work with them, their communities and our other partners on economic development in their areas so that they have the opportunities to get new jobs.

Obviously we also are helping children and parents with young children to get the choice in child care that they need, whatever that is, whether it is parents staying home with the children themselves or whether it is nine to five, Monday to Friday. Perhaps it is evenings and weekends. Maybe they work part time.

I cannot tell you, Mr. Chair, how many people have thanked me for this. I have one couple at home who said that with three children under the age of six they are now going to be able to afford to have one of the parents stay home to raise the kids. That was their choice. I am just so pleased that it is going to work for them.

What I am saying is that we are working to help Canadians of all origins, in all locations and in all circumstances, right across the country, because that is a good thing and that is what a responsible government should be doing. We should also be doing it responsibly. That is why we make sure we review our programs. It is to make sure that the services we provide, and the ones we are paying for, are actually getting delivered to those for whom they are intended.

As we go forward, we are going to be focusing on the labour market and helping make sure that employers can get the skilled workers they need, where they need them and when they need them, and also on making sure that our workforce has accessibility to the jobs they need.

We will be working on behalf of the disabled to help reduce barriers to employment for them. We hope to be bringing in a national disabilities act which will be working in that direction.

We are also working with aboriginals to get their schooling levels and their skill levels up. We have a number of partnerships that we are working on there.

We want to work with youth at risk, because if they are employed and earning an income, their self-respect and self-esteem go up and the incidence of crime goes down.

There is a lot that we are doing. We will continue to do it.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to make a presentation because, judging by the answers I have heard so far, it would be better that I put forward my arguments and views.

Last week, the Minister of Labour e-mailed all members a study a few pages long, which tortures the statistics to the point of making them confess to very weak arguments against anti-strikebreaking legislation.

This eleventh-hour rotten trick of distributing the minister's study to members just a few hours before last week's historical vote failed. Indeed, 20 Conservative members, 20 of his own colleagues, voted in favour of the legislation. These members have voted with their ridings in mind. They are well aware of the merits of this legislation and they want to see it enforced in their own ridings. By the way, 166 members of this House have voted in favour of this bill at second reading.

According to the analysis carried out by the Minister of Labour, who blithely distributed it left and right, and based on other statements made publicly in this House and at committee, banning the use of replacement workers would have no positive impact on labour relations and provide no advantage. That is surprising, because the Minister of Labour and member for Jonquière-Alma voted in favour of this bill when he was the member for that riding, one of the most heavily unionized in Quebec and Canada.

This departmental analysis has extremely questionable foundations. I have taken a very close look at the figures. Using figures, arguments and data from the Canadian Labour Congress's response which, incidentally, is very well put together, I have cross-referenced this CLC analysis with relevant data just as carefully collected and rigorously substantiated by Bloc Québécois researchers.

The minister makes several mistakes in this study, for instance, when he compares Quebec and the rest of Canada with respect to work stoppages. First of all, the study's authors claim that, in the last few years, there were more work stoppages in Quebec than in British Columbia or under federal jurisdiction. These statistics, however, explain absolutely nothing.

In fact, it is only normal that there are fewer strikes in jurisdictions in which there are no anti-scab measures, because there is no real balance of power. Therefore, employees do not really have the right to strike. Since they can be replaced by scabs, employees have no real balance of power. There is no balance—a word the minister seems to like very much—between employees' rights and those of companies.

The number of days lost per person is much lower in Quebec jurisdictions than in federal jurisdictions. That is the correct statistic. Also, we must not rely on the length of strikes or the number of labour disputes, rather, the number of working days lost per person, and establish a comparison, within the same province, between the provincial jurisdiction where anti-scab legislation exists, and the federal jurisdiction.

According to the Labour Canada database on work stoppages, between 1999 and 2004, just over 2.54 million working days were lost in Quebec because of labour disputes. During the same period, more than 7.92 million—8 million—working days were lost in the federal sector, a difference of 300%, even though the labour force under federal jurisdiction in Quebec accounts for less than 8% of Quebec's overall labour force.

I will provide another sort of statistic so that the Minister of Labour has a good grasp of the statistic in question. I will give two or three examples. This is what is known as “crossover skills”.

In 2004, when workers under federal jurisdiction in Quebec accounted for less than 8% of the overall labour force, as I mentioned earlier, they were responsible for 18% of the person-days lost during labour disputes. In addition, the Labour Canada database reveals that between 1999 and 2003, just over 1.13 million working days were lost in British Columbia. The minister should feel free to take notes. During the same period, more than 5.5 million working days were lost in the federal sector, a difference of nearly 500%.

As I said earlier, the best statistic is the number of person-days lost. It is not possible to compare provinces on the basis of the length or the number of labour conflicts. The situations are too different and do not give a true picture.

The studies that the minister is so fond of quoting include the Gunderson study in 1999. Can we say that this study is outdated and therefore does not reflect Canada's recent experience with replacement workers in the federal sector? The minister also likes to quote two other more recent studies: the study by Landeo and Nikitin in 2005, which is limited to the education sector, and the study by Singh, Zinni and Jain in 2005, which clearly explains, contrary to what the minister would have us believe, that using replacement workers is harmful. He will have to redo his homework.

It is disturbing to see that the minister quotes several times from studies by J. Budd, one conducted in 2000 and the other in 1996. This man is a partner in one of the toughest and most openly anti-union companies in the United States. His firm—Clifton, Budd and Demaria—has consulted on various disastrous labour conflicts in the United States, where the voice of reason has been ignored and companies have opted to use search and destroy tactics against workers.

It should be noted that the minister's analysis makes absolutely no mention of the very lengthy labour disputes at Quebec companies under federal jurisdiction. Even though I have statistics and have already provided statistics, what we need to understand is that in Quebec things are clear and simple. We do not need statistics to understand that. When there is a labour dispute that is drawn out unnecessarily, or a violent labour dispute involving vandalism, it soon becomes clear that the company in question is under federal jurisdiction.

I will give you some examples. In the case of Vidéotron, the dispute lasted from May 2002 to March 2003, or 11 months. In the case of Cargill, in Baie-Comeau, the dispute lasted from 1999 to 2003, or three years. As far as Radio-Nord is concerned, a more recent example, the dispute lasted from October 2002 to August 2004, or 22 months. These are three companies under federal jurisdiction that had extremely lengthy disputes.

The minister's statistics were distorted to say what he wanted us to hear, but they do not reflect the reality we experience in Quebec.

Furthermore, the Minister of Labour points out that 97% of labour disputes are settled at the negotiating table and that less than 1.5% of the employers use replacement workers. The minister comes to the false conclusion that this proves that the status quo is satisfactory. He is mistaken. The Sims report of 1996 came to the opposite conclusion, as did the minority report prepared by Dr. Rodrigue Blouin in 1996.

Let us now talk about balance, since that is one of the minister's pet subjects. He came to our committee on October 17 or 19 to tell us that balance is the employer having the right to continue operating his business when there is a strike. That is this minister's definition of balance, but that is not it. Balance in labour relations is when pressure tactics to resolve a dispute are shared equally and fairly by the employers and the employees. In a labour dispute, employees go without their income and their work. In order to resolve disputes quickly, employers must also feel pressure by going without their production and the revenue from their production.

I had more to say, but I have a few questions, if I still have time. Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

You have one minute remaining for your speech and then five minutes for questions and comments.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Let me get right to the questions.

Does the minister plan to give parliamentarians what they want by asking his government not to slow down the work in committee and to enact Bill C-257 when it is passed at third reading?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think all of those present in this House are well aware that union movements in this country have put a lot of pressure on all parliamentarians with respect to this bill.

I would like to remind the members that balance is important in the workplace. If we made a law that satisfied only the unions, we would have anarchy. If we made a law that satisfied only employers, we would also have anarchy. Both parties need power to maintain the balance in labour relations.

In 1977, Quebec passed its anti-scab law. In the 29 years since then, only Quebec and British Columbia have passed similar laws. If it were a good law, the other provinces would have adopted it years ago. But they have not.

In 1995, even Ontario—

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am glad I took my first 10 minutes to present my arguments, because the minister did not even answer my question. I will therefore repeat it. Perhaps he needs to hear things twice.

What I am saying is very serious, and I would like a short and serious answer. My question is clear and I would like a direct answer.

Will the minister promise not to slow down the committee's work? Will he promise to enact the bill when it is passed at third reading?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr.Chair, my question for my honourable colleague is this:

Will the members of the opposition take the time to call a number of experts from both sides to hear the employers' arguments about why there should not be anti-scab legislation in Canada and the other side's arguments in favour?

I think this is important. We have to have a balance.

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

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The rules of the game are clear: the answer must be the same length as the question and must constitute an answer. He cannot answer with a question.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I appreciate the member's assistance on that. There has to be some flexibility in the length of the question and the length of the response. Often you can have a very short question on a complicated issue where the minister might need more time. In fact, the minister had not taken any more time to respond and I do not think we want to get into regulating how ministers do respond.

I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, since my question had two parts perhaps it was too complicated for the minister.

I will repeat only the first part this time.

First, does he promise to not slow down the work of the committee? Yes or no?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will reiterate my comments. I hope that, in committee, all parliamentarians will listen to the representatives of both employers and unions in order to be in a position to properly assess the advantages and disadvantages of implementing an anti-scab bill in Canada.

In my opinion, if we listen carefully to the arguments, we will ascertain that, in 1999, when parliamentarians changed the law, it was balanced—

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I realize that, even when I restate my questions so that they are simpler, I do not get an answer. I do understand, however, that the minister is not making any promises and I am quite worried about what will happen next.

Since I am an incurable optimist, I will nevertheless ask my second question.

Will the minister promulgate Bill C-257 when adopted at third reading? I would like a yes or no answer.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Chair, I cannot foresee or control the votes in this House. Decisions are made by a majority of parliamentarians. After the vote, if the bill is passed, it will go to the Senate, and we will see what happens next.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I guess I will never get a clear answer from this minister. Nevertheless, as I said, because I am always so optimistic, I will continue to talk to him about Bill C-55.

In the Estimates, I did not see adequate financial reserves to implement Bill C-55. The previous government had told us that the wage earner protection program would cost between $30 million and $50 million. If I divide by the number of months left in this year—because the minister told me that it was a matter of weeks—can he tell me in which part of the budget I can find the wage earner protection program for employees in businesses that have gone bankrupt?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to confirm to the hon. member that, indeed, the budget provides $32.2 million for that purpose, for the years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.

So, $32.2 million is indeed allocated to that purpose. In fact, $28.7 million will be used to pay employees who lose their jobs following a bankruptcy, while $3.5 million will be used to manage the program.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate tonight. I would like to speak to the importance of supporting the trades and encouraging apprenticeships.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Social Development, I have come to better understand the significant labour market challenges facing Canada during the course of this committee's employability study, specifically the testimony we heard last week as we traveled through eastern Canada, and specifically the ones I attended in Toronto and Montreal where there were certainly some impassioned discourses with the committee.

The reasons for these challenges are well known. One is demographic. Canada's workforce is aging. Large numbers of our workers in the baby boom generation are now close to retirement age and because of the low birth rate since that era, sufficient number of new workers have not been coming into the labour market to replace them.

Another reason we are experiencing labour shortages in key trades has to do with the booming regional economies. In Alberta, for example, the economy is creating more demand for workers than available in supply. In other areas, such as B.C. or parts of central Canada, skilled construction workers are in short supply. Factors like these are coming together to produce considerable challenges for our labour market.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, within the next 25 years, we will face a skills shortage of 1.2 million workers.

According to Len Crispino, president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, my home province will face a shortage of 100,000 skilled workers within the next 15 years in the manufacturing sector alone. Moreover, Mr. Crispino has noted these challenges have extended beyond what we consider traditional trades. He stated:

It isn't just tool and die makers — or plumbers — or electricians. Ontario has a diverse — and diversifying — economy. That's one of our great strengths. But it creates challenges. We love attracting new sectors to the economy...but we need to create the workers to build and expand those sectors. Look at Niagara, a world-class wine region that has a shortage of vintners and a shortage of winery technicians. And yet we know that the wine industry will need to triple its number of employees within the next 15 to 20 years.

Clearly, the Government of Canada is concerned about the situation for two fundamental reasons. First, we have a duty to ensure our national labour market works efficiently and effectively. Second, we have a responsibility to work with stakeholders to identify and help the labour and skills needs of Canadian employers now and into the future. Nowhere are these responsibilities more important than in the area of skilled trades and apprenticeships.

We have relied and continue to rely upon the skilled trades to build our great country. For example, stop for a moment to consider the extent we rely upon skilled workers and rely upon each other as a team in the process of constructing a house. As the Calgary Herald's Tyee Bridge noted, building a single house requires the services of about 360 tradespeople. What is more, every tradesperson is dependent upon the previous trade. Tyee Bridge went on to say:

The carpet guy can't lay carpet if the stairs guys haven't done the stringer caps, the stairs guys can't start until the drywall's done, the drywallers wait on rough-ins by the electricians, plumbers and HVAC guys.

Skilled trades themselves rely upon the apprenticeship system to train and equip the succeeding generations to carry on in this tradition, but emerging traditions and trends within the trades have brought cause for concern.

A July 2006 Canadian Council on Learning apprenticeship training in Canada study made two interesting observations I would like to note today. First, among many of the skilled trades, the proportion of workers aged 55 and over is greater than that of the overall workforce. Second, the number of young workers available to replace those retiring is lower than the overall workforce. In some, the demographic trends contributing to labour market shortages are having a more pronounced impact on the trades.

The research also indicated that many young people and women are disinclined to enter the trades, mainly on account of outdated societal conventions. For far too long, young people have been counselled to avoid the trades in favour of white collar occupations. This was largely due to negative perceptions that such work was dangerous and low paying, a perception that does not bear out in practice. As Dave Benbow, president of the Canadian Home Builders' Association, noted, “We as adults never discussed the trades as a career option for our children”.

I look at my own family. My grandfather is 89 years old. He was involved, and still is, in the skilled trades, a small business in the automotive sector. He has 16 grandchildren, five kids, and none of them went into the trades. We see that generational divider where there are not enough young Canadians entering the skilled trades.

Moreover, women are not represented in the trades in sufficiently large numbers. As Toronto Star columnist Carol Goar remarked:

Gender roles haven't caught up to the reality of the marketplace. Although employers are willing to hire female electricians, carpenters and millwrights, many young women still consider these male occupations.

Without a doubt, Canada's new government recognizes that we must be proactive in encouraging entry into these trades. Entry into the trades traditionally occurs through apprenticeship. If we want to address these trends, we can start by encouraging apprenticeships. This is exactly what Canada's new government is doing, despite what Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty would suggest.

Budget 2006 introduced new measures to provide strong incentives for both employers to hire new apprentices and to encourage young Canadians to pursue apprenticeship training opportunities. The budget created a new apprenticeship job creation tax credit, providing employers with up to $2,000 per apprentice for each of the first two years of their contract in a red seal trade. It also introduced an apprenticeship incentive grant to provide apprentices with $1,000 for each of their first two years in a red seal apprenticeship program.

These two measures amount to more than a $500 million investment over the next two years that will benefit over 100,000 apprentices annually. On top of that, we brought in a tax deduction of $500 against the cost of tools over $1,000 that will benefit some 700,000 tradespeople, representing an additional investment of $155 million in the trades over the next two years by Canada's new government.

The reaction to these measures was overwhelmingly positive. Scott Macivor, chief executive officer of the Ontario Construction Secretariat, welcomed the higher profile given to the skilled trades than under the previous Liberal government stating, “We're very positive about these initiatives”.

Leah Myers, president of Durham College, was quoted as saying the budget 2006 measures were “an important step toward helping Canada develop a better skilled and educated workforce that is able to compete in today's global economy”.

In my own riding of Barrie, Ontario, Georgian College has a specific focus on the trades. The current Prime Minister in December visited Georgian College and told students that he was going to make this a priority. The trades were important to the Prime Minister. I can say there is a tremendous appreciation that we have a government that has kept its word and delivered for those involved in this important sector.

Peter Woodall, chair of the Automotive & Motorcycle Programs at Centennial College in Toronto lauded the emphasis placed on supporting employers and new apprentices, noting this is exactly what the industry really needs.

That is not all we are doing. As many members know, the Government of Canada is a strong supporter of the interprovincial red seal program established to provide greater mobility across Canada for skilled tradesworkers.

The preceding represented just a few examples of how Canada's new government is moving to address labour market pressures through targeted support for the trades and apprenticeships. Moreover, it is part of a broader commitment made by this government to invest in people, so that they in turn can help contribute to a more productive, competitive and sustainable future.

As I conclude, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the minister to comment on the work of her department through Service Canada.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Chair, I wonder if we were like the official opposition when we had committee of the whole.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

You were much, much worse.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I would really like to applaud the member from Barrie for her outstanding remarks. The member from Barrie has been a wonderful addition to Parliament. I find he is conscientious and industrious in the approach that he has to parliamentary duties. His constituents in Barrie have been well served.

I would like to respond on behalf of the minister and explain some of the ways Service Canada is working to make it easier for Canadians to get the programs and services they need, as well as some of its accomplishments over the past year.

Simply put, Service Canada's mandate is to improve service to Canadians. In a nutshell, the goal is to give people a single place to go for government programs and services.