Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 7, 2006, immediately before the time provided for private members’ business.

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

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, on May 10, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services a question about how Government of Canada jobs are distributed in the national capital region. Both he and his minister acknowledged that there is a policy in place. The policy provides that 75% of the jobs be located in Ontario and 25% in Quebec.

The minister stated that reaching this goal would be costly because the government would have to build or rent new buildings for federal employees in Gatineau. I believe that we must immediately put a strategy in place to close the existing gap.

Jobs have been migrating to the Ontario side of the border. For example, the Canada Revenue Agency used to be located in the Fontaine building. Six hundred employees were relocated from Quebec to Ontario. These people now have to travel all the way to Billings Bridge or to Ottawa West to work. These jobs, which were linked to the knowledge industry, were very important for the Outaouais.

I also think that jobs in Ottawa should be more evenly distributed between the eastern and western parts of the city. The west has far more jobs.

There has been talk recently of moving the RCMP to the building once occupied by JDS, located some 20 km from Parliament Hill. Adding spaces to the office building portfolio on the Ottawa side would also contribute to job creation for Ottawa. And, as a result, this would reduce the proportion on the Quebec side. At this rate, there is no doubt that the job gap will continue to increase, not decrease.

In recent years, it has become apparent that transparency is an essential factor in sound public administration. In an attempt to respect this principle, I believe that the government must call for public tenders for any acquisition, lease or construction of government buildings. The Canadian public and the House of Commons have the right to be informed of all such spending. Only a public, competitive process can ensure that this principle is respected.

We cannot ignore the economic and social importance of public service jobs in a region. Locating and consolidating federal government jobs in the Outaouais, respecting the distribution of jobs on both sides of the river, is a major factor in our development. This is not a new situation.

I introduced a motion during the last parliament asking the Government of Canada to take the necessary steps to distribute federal jobs in the national capital region more equitably between Ontario and Quebec.

In addition to government departments, this job distribution strategy must cover all federal corporations, agencies and institutions identified in the Bank of Canada Act, the Broadcasting Act , the Canada Council Act, the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act, the International Development Research Centre Act, the National Defence Act, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Telefilm Canada Act. It must also include the institutions that are identified in a schedule to the Financial Administration Act or come under that act.

I am thinking of the Bank of Canada, the CBC, National Defence, the Canada Council, the International Development Research Centre, Canada Post and even the House of Commons and the Senate.

I ask that a statistical summary of all public service jobs in the national capital region, as I have just described, the location of those jobs and the employee movements over the past five years be tabled in this House.

We can no longer afford to wait while, in Ontario, the number of employees keeps on growing and the government's building inventory keeps on expanding. It is time to act.

What short-term and long-term strategies does the minister intend to put in place to bring the ratio back to 75/25?

6:35 p.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam B.C.

Conservative

James Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Public Works and Government Services is the largest real estate and office space manager in Canada. We manage a diverse portfolio of office space and other facilities.

There are three main drivers affecting the government's requirement for new office space: first, office space that has aged and is in need of major renovations; second, expiring leases; and, third, the evolving needs of the Government of Canada.

Departments are striving to attain the 75:25 ratio between Ottawa and Gatineau for federal government offices in the national capital region. The current ratio for the Public Works portfolio is 77% in Ontario and 23% in Quebec. Currently, it is estimated that we need another 70,000 square metres to meet the 75:25 target.

The combination of expiring leases and the identified expansion from various government departments over the next five years will provide the opportunity to acquire more office space, and therefore jobs, in the Gatineau region that the member has asked about.

Considering the projected increase in our Ottawa inventory and the planned increase in our Gatineau inventory from now to 2011, the distribution of our office space would bring the ratio to its target of 75:25.

Market availability and development potential within Gatineau has been assessed, a number of existing supply is available, while other properties are ready for development, including Crown-owned sites. Discussions with client departments are under way to examine Gatineau's solutions to their accommodation needs.

I hope this answers the hon. member's questions.

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform my colleague that his response does not satisfy our expectations whatsoever. When he talks about a comparison of 77% to 23% he is not taking into account the jobs of all the federal agencies and institutions on the list I provided in my speech.

Now is the time to take action. We cannot wait for the announcement of the RCMP move to the JDS building. It will be too late. The buildings left empty by the departure of the RCMP would then have to be filled, which would mean even more new jobs on the Ontario side. The gap will continue to expand and it is the citizens of the Outaouais who will pay the price.

When does the minister intend to share his strategy on the distribution of jobs in the national capital region, namely 75% on the Ontario side and 25% on the Quebec side, by taking into account all the jobs that stem from the Government of Canada?

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I said, discussions are taking place, of course the study is ongoing, and there will be forthcoming opportunities up until the year 2011 to have increased office space, and therefore jobs on the Quebec side of the river.

I know that my colleague from Hull--Aylmer is concerned about this issue. It is an issue that directly affects his constituency. However, if he is unhappy with the current process, if he is unhappy with the current ratio, if he is unhappy with how things are unfolding, and if he is unhappy with the way things are going to be in the future, then he should have raised those issues when he was on the government side of the House of Commons.

The current ratio of jobs between the Ontario side and the Quebec side of the river is a ratio that reflects the policies that were put in place by the Liberal government. If he thinks that has a been a failure, then he should look in the mirror and talk to his own party because it is Liberal policy that led to this result.

The government is committed to the 75:25 principle. We will see that through. There are increasing opportunities coming forward in the future. We look forward to working with the hon. member to see that realized.

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, when news of the western hemisphere travel initiative came to Parliament last year, it was very impressive to see the thoughtful coordinated response led by the then deputy minister at the time, Anne McLellan.

The previous government's determined and logical approach really was beginning to work. The submissions received before the October 31 deadline from the responsible public service agencies, from the tourism and hospitality industries and from business and travel groups was not only encouraging but also effective.

Border community leaders, particularly mayors and other municipal organizations, did a yeoman's service in rallying their American counterparts. Progress was being made and President Bush had committed to the then prime minister, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, that he would do his best to resolve the issue in a positive manner.

Fast forward to February 2006 when the current Prime Minister told Canadians to “get used to it” and rolled over on this issue in Cancun, Mexico, a capitulation that many of us found very difficult and disturbing, especially those of us who had been labouring to resolve the matter. Why did he surrender so quickly when we were doing so well? Why throw in the towel?

People on both sides of the border had come to understand that the proposed bill would stifle cross-border movements on both sides. This basic component resonated dramatically. The Ontario provincial minister of tourism, Jim Bradley, carried the message very strenuously. He deserves considerable credit for assisting the federal Liberal crusade. Co-chair of the Canada-U.S. parliamentary group, Senator Jerry Grafstein, has been tireless in his work to achieve a delay in the American legislation.

On the ground and in the field people like Jerry Fisher of the Northwestern Ontario Tourism Association demonstrated an incredible perseverance to make their case. The council of the town of Fort Frances has proposed a hands across the border consortium of border communities to send strong messages to the other orders of government about the need to do even more to open borders while respecting the need for thorough security.

That the federal Conservative government would not support the tourism and hospitality industries is unbelievable. Even Ontario's provincial Conservatives are now supporting our work.

I am pleased that the work of so many others, including our public servants, coalesced their arguments into cogent, focused and practical solutions.

Let us hope the current government will not just undo the good work done previously, but will build on the success of positive relationships and design a more practical and cost effective identification. I truly hope they will use the resolve of so many Canadians and Americans to use the time extension to 2009 for an improved security verification.

In the spirit of cooperation, I trust the government will strive toward this positively.

6:40 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the western hemisphere travel initiative is the American undertaking to require individuals entering or returning to the U.S. to show proof of citizenship or documentation, such as a passport, upon entering the country.

We have been very active in pressing the Americans on the need for mutually acceptable approaches to protecting security without harming tourism and trade. While our party has been extraordinarily active on this, the fact remains that we are in this position only because of the total and complete failure of the previous Liberal government to act when the law we are facing was actually being debated by Americans.

The intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act, which established the new requirements, was adopted in December 2004. Did the Liberal government make representation to any committee of the House of Representatives or Senate at that time? No, it was asleep at the switch. Did the Liberal Prime Minister or foreign affairs minister raise any concerns with their counterparts? No. Did the Liberal government make any written submission to promote and defend Canada's interests before the law became final? No.

The problem we face today is a direct result of the complete failure of the Liberal government of the day, to which the member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River belonged, to take any action or steps to protect Canada.

Later, when it came time to develop a detailed implementation plan for the law, the Liberal government continued to slumber. Only after the leader of the Conservative Party took the extraordinary step of writing, as an opposition leader, to the Americans did the Liberal government finally wake up, and what a feeble response.

On October 31, 2005 on the eve of an election called in Canada, on the very last possible day to comment on the proposed implementation measures, almost a year after the law was passed and well over a year after the law was first debated, Canada's then Liberal government finally submitted a formal comment to the Americans.

Unfortunately, that was of course too late to change the law that had long ago passed. The horse had left the barn when the Liberals were asleep on the job, or perhaps just too busy calling the Americans names to actually do something to protect Canadian interests. All we can do now is try to clean up a terrible situation left to us by the Liberals and try to influence the detailed implementation of the initiative.

Our Prime Minister and government have been hard at work. In just 100 days, we have done more than the previous government did in years to stand up for Canada's interests.

First, the Prime Minister secured the President's recognition of the urgency of Canada's concerns on the WHTI during their first meeting. They tasked Canada's security minister and U.S. Secretary Michael Chertoff with making the WHTI work for both countries. The minister and secretary met on April 18 and Canada recommended alternative requirements which might meet the intent of the U.S. law. We invited the secretary to visit Ottawa this spring for further discussions. In Washington on April 13, our foreign minister pressed Canada's concerns with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Our efforts are paying off. Already a number of positive developments signal greater flexibility by the U.S. administration and Congress. On May 22, President Bush contrasted the significant differences between the southern and northern borders. The President said that it was his intention that any cross-border ID card should be compatible with Canadian needs and not be restrictive.

On May 25, the U.S. Senate passed the immigration reform bill, including two amendments delaying the final implementation of the WHTI to June 1, 2009. One of those amendments provides for economic studies to evaluate the impact of the WHTI and a substantial section on reciprocity with Canada, enabling the Secretary of State to accept provincial documents as valid ID to enter the U.S.

We are making progress but there is no guarantee, unlike what the member thinks, that these amendments will find their way into the final law. The House of Representatives must still pass its own version of the highly sensitive immigration reform act.

Our two governments will continue discussions this spring and our embassy in Washington is continuing its vigorous advocacy on this issue. Unlike the previous Liberal government, of which the member of Parliament for Thunder Bay--Rainy River was a member, we are not asleep at the switch. We are active, engaged and making progress in digging Canada out of the hole the Liberals left us in on this essential issue that is so important to our economy.

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON

Mr. Speaker, arguments such as that are so pathetic, always trying to blame someone else when the Conservatives have been ineffective and inactive. I think the entire country is well aware of the Prime Minister's rollover to President Bush in Cancun, telling people to get used to it.

We have had considerable success. It was the Liberal government that mobilized the entire country. Community organizations, border communities, and the public service, all were very focused and had direct influence. Indeed, the presentations made before the election was called had made their mark. Consequently, the remarks made in Mexico by the Prime Minister really undid a lot of that and set us back considerably.

The Conservatives cannot fool the people. The entire tourism and hospitality industry knows that the government abandoned them. We are very fortunate that people persisted and went around the Prime Minister to make that case and get the extension in 2009, and I thank all of those who worked so hard to do that.

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, we must set the record straight. The extension was only obtained after a new government in Canada intervened with the Americans and pressed the case and drew to their attention the problems that arose.

We pay great tribute to the broad private sector interests and municipal interests that have gathered to defend the tourism and financial interests that we have at stake.

We saw again today in the House of Commons in question period the anti-American smear from the Liberal Party members. Is it any wonder that during their time in government they were unable to even talk to the Americans about the problems proposed by this legislation? This legislation, and the WHTI initiative that flowed from it and which could have hurt Canada so much, went by without a single comment, public speech or letter from the Canadian government or our Liberal prime minister at the time. They could not communicate. They were actually more interested in picking fights with the Americans.

They oppose our resolution to the softwood lumber deal because it represents a constructive solution that works for Canadians. That is what we did on softwood lumber and that is what we are doing today on the western hemisphere travel initiative.

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.)