House of Commons Hansard #32 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sentence.
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, once again this government is being taken to task by 800 scientists who find its lack of commitment to fight greenhouse gases totally irresponsible. They do not understand why the government is not respecting Canada's commitments with regard to the Kyoto protocol.
Does the government intend to drop its dogmatic attitude toward Kyoto and accept the arguments of the 800 scientists who are asking it to respect the Kyoto protocol?
Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member is not right. This government is in favour of reducing greenhouse gases. It will not be easy since we inherited a 26% increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the previous government. We will work together with the provinces and industry in order to reduce this type of emission.
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, one of the scientists at the meeting asked, and I quote, “How can an environmental plan that does not respect Kyoto be better than Kyoto? I find this somewhat hard to understand”.
The government claims to want to go above and beyond Kyoto, but it is brushing off Canada's commitments.
Does the government realize that in order to go beyond Kyoto, it absolutely must respect the commitments that have been made, not toss them aside?
Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want in terms of environmental policy are results, not empty words. The previous government did not deliver the goods on reducing greenhouse gases, nor with respect to pollution. This fall, the government will introduce a bill to reduce pollution. We are currently developing a plan—made in Canada—to reduce greenhouse gases.
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we learned that the oil industry was responsible for 30% of all Canadian greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, tar sands extraction is expected to triple over the next decade.
Are we to understand that the reason for the government's unwillingness to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments is the fact that it has chosen to favour big polluters like the oil companies in western Canada over protecting the environment?
Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, again, we can see an attack by the Bloc Québécois pitting region against region. But the fact is that all Canadians want an effective environmental policy that delivers tangible results. At the same time, we need an energy policy which provides for the energy needs of both industry and the Canadian public. That is why we will continue to have a policy which balances environmental and economic interests.
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, the public, scientists and parliamentarians agree on the need to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments in order to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. The government is the only one refusing to see the red flag that is being raised.
What will it take for the government to listen to reason and finally decide to fulfill its commitments?
Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it is an obvious fact that the previous government made a commitment to reduce emissions. It missed the targets by 35%. All hon. members know this makes it impossible for this government to reach this target after the colossal failure of the previous government. We are, however, in the process of developing a made in Canada policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we will reduce emissions.
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was revealed that up to 60 foreign workers were doing tunnelling work on the new rapid transit line in Vancouver. Most of these workers earn as little as $5 per hour and work nine to ten hours a day, six days a week. The employer brings in these workers from Costa Rica, Colombia and Peru and pays them four to five times less than their Canadian counterparts.
This clearly violates foreign worker criteria that wages and working conditions must be comparable to those of Canadian workers.
Does the minister believe that this exploitation should be tolerated in Canada and, if not, what will he do to stop it?
Monte Solberg ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the issue of temporary foreign workers is a very important one today. About $120 billion in projects in Alberta are being held up for a lack of workers and something like $90 billion worth of projects in B.C. are being held up for a lack of workers. Sometimes there are rubs with these things.
We are continuing to work with Human Resources and Social Development Canada to identify the issues, such as the ones the member has raised, to ensure all workers are treated fairly. It is our commitment to the member that we will find ways to do that.
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, excuses aside, this exploitation is happening in Vancouver as we speak and at a time when there are Canadians available to do the work.
Mark Olsen, business manager of Labourers Local 1611, says that he has “a stack of resumés of qualified workers, who are experienced, willing and able to do this tunnelling work”.
Why is the government approving applications for temporary foreign workers when qualified Canadians are ready and willing to do the job? When did cheap, exploitable foreign labour become the government's bottom line?
Monte Solberg ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that there is a process in place. When companies go looking for workers they are required to search the country for these workers. They advertise across the country month after month. The process is very thorough. I would suggest that in this case the member has his facts wrong.
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Indian Affairs was in opposition he pretended to care about the quality of life for aboriginal people in Canada. However, this year, when he had the opportunity to act on this issue and when there was more than enough money in the federal books, he failed to provide the leadership he was calling for just one year ago.
Will the minister stop insulting aboriginal people by denying the Kelowna accord exists and stand up and implement the Kelowna accord with all of its funding today?
Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians
Mr. Speaker, we should try to get beyond the sort of partisanship that we are seeing in the House. I want to be clear that I was at Kelowna but I do not believe the hon. member was.
There were two specific problems at Kelowna that the hon. member will not be able to address. The first is that there was no budgeted money flowing from the Kelowna process. The second is that there was no Kelowna accord that was signed. An agreement was never signed.
I invited the members opposite to table that agreement and they tabled a press release. This government does not govern with press releases.
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, the residents of the Garden Hill First Nation in my community are dealing with a tuberculosis epidemic which has never been seen before in Canada. We are talking about a disease that has been eradicated in most of Canada. Kashechewan has also been abandoned.
The accord was about immediate action to improve the lives of aboriginal people in Canada. The spirit of the accord was one of cooperation, consultation and partnership.
How can the Minister of Indian Affairs continue to justify not funding the accord when it is clear the money was booked and all that is needed is leadership?
Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians
Mr. Speaker, it seems clear that the House will reverberate again this morning with more Liberal empty promises to aboriginal Canadians.
The truth of the matter is that there was no Kelowna money in any of the Liberal budgets. No Kelowna money was ever submitted to the House of Commons. In fact, there was no Kelowna money at Kelowna.
Now the House faces the spectre of a private member's bill offering a continuation of the same thing, no money. The truth is that the former Liberal government never delivered to aboriginal Canadians.
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, last fall a plan for the relocation of Kashechewan was put forward and the money was booked. The Ontario government has given permission to pursue this move. The Ontario minister has urged the government to speed up the initially agreed upon timeline for the relocation.
He also stated, “money's not an issue here” because the money is there. It is the lack of political will from the government that is the issue.
When will the minister stop inventing fiction? When will he stand up and start acting in the best interests of Canada's aboriginal peoples?
Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians
Mr. Speaker, let us take the hon. member up on his suggestion. Why does he not table in the House where the Kashechewan money was booked? Why does he not provide that to the House of Commons?
The truth is that an agreement was signed by the former minister which the government did not budget for. Since that time, four of the six sites that were under discussion have been flooded. We will continue to work with the community in consultation to find a solution to this.
Once again we have a former Liberal government operating without budgetary parameters and with empty promises to aboriginal Canadians. We will not do that.
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I just got off the phone with the chief of Kashechewan and he wonders why the minister walked away from him last night when he was presented--
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
The province has no issue with handing Crown lands over to the Kashechewan First Nation. The new territory must be designated by the federal minister as reserve land under federal law. The Ontario minister knows that an agreement was reached with the previous government and that it is the Conservative minister who is holding it up.
When will this fiction and these denials end and action begin?
Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians
Mr. Speaker, the only fiction in the House of Commons today is that the former Liberal government dealt with this in any responsible way.
I take from the former government member's comments a suggestion that we should be building houses on the sites selected by the former Liberal government. The truth is that those sites flooded this spring.
We need to work together with the Kashechewan community and we will be doing that. We will find a suitable alternative location and we will build a proper community, something the Liberal government never did.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, pilot project no. 6 will end on Sunday, June 4, 2006. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development announced this week that it will be replaced by a new pilot project to be implemented, insofar as Quebec is concerned, in the same employment insurance economic regions.
Can the minister assure us that the new pilot project will be in effect on June 5 and that all workers in these regions who lose their jobs prior to that date will be entitled to five additional weeks?
Lynne Yelich ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that the government intends to introduce the extended EI benefits pilot project which will run until December 8, 2007. It will continue to provide up to the five additional weeks of EI benefits in regions included in the original pilot project.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, the economic region of Montreal has the fourth highest unemployment rate in Quebec. Yet, the Conservatives decided that they would not include it in their new pilot project.
How can the government justify abandoning the unemployed of Montreal when the unemployment rate in this region is greater than in 5% of the regions included in the new pilot project?