Debates of Oct. 19th, 2007

Aboriginal Affairs

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government that scrapped the Kelowna accord. The $1.3 billion in funding for health care was laid out in the Kelowna accord. It was money that was desperately needed in these remote, isolated communities. Is the minister going to be honest enough to tell that to the chiefs? After all, it was the Conservative government that slashed and gutted the Kelowna accord.

How will he explain this broken commitment? What is he going to do to help these communities and to help these chiefs provide health care for their communities?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, we have increased transfers by over $200 million to aboriginals in this country. We are providing testing and advice to the chief and council in Port Alberni. This past summer, Health Canada officials worked jointly with communities to inspect the homes infected by mould, for example.

Throughout Canada, in fact, through the hard work of our cabinet and colleagues, first nations peoples are optimistic about their future, a lot more so than they were under the Liberals.

Employment Insurance

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how many more times will we have to repeat that the only way employees can be efficiently protected from the vagaries of the economy is by ensuring autonomy and independence in the management of the employment insurance account? We all know that, at present, only a fraction of those who contribute are actually eligible for benefits. In the throne speech, the government said it would improve the governance of the employment insurance account.

Will the minister give us the assurance that he will support the establishment of an independent fund so as to put an end to this looting?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we will improve the management and governance of the EI account. We have committed to that in the throne speech.

We have also, in our short time in government, reduced the premiums, improved the benefits and, I want to point out, are now contributing more to training for workers than any government in the history of this country.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when they were in the opposition, the Conservatives supported the principles of autonomy and independence for the EI account. Now that they are forming a minority government, they know that this could be achieved by passing Bill C-357 put forward by the Bloc Québécois, but are using the royal recommendation as a procedural tactic to informally oppose such a policy.

Could the minister tell this House whether he will support the principles of autonomy and independence for the EI account by seeing the passing of Bill C-357 through to completion?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Québécois have brought forward a number of private members' bills which, if they were all implemented, would make the employment insurance account not viable. It could not be sustained. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars in new benefits that they want to introduce.

The point is to have a fund that is sustainable and to balance it with benefits that will allow people to have a fallback in the case of layoff and also with training options, which we are providing through new labour market agreements with the provinces, with $3 billion over the next six years.

Equalization Payments

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to provide us with any details on the side deal with Nova Scotia with regard to the Atlantic accord. So far all we have seen is happy for the camera handshakes, with absolutely zero documentation.

We will have to forgive Atlantic Canadians if they are leery about taking the word of the government and in particular the word of the Minister of National Defence. Bruce MacKinnon, the editorial cartoonist in today's Chronicle-Herald, exposes the naked truth. The cartoon may imply that the minister has nothing to hide, but Nova Scotians want to know: where is he hiding the document?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand the premise of the question. I think there is some suggestion that there is no deal with Nova Scotia, that there is no Atlantic accord. The hon. member would be aware that this is a falsehood that he is attempting to spread.

The federal government is very satisfied with the agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Nova Scotia is extremely satisfied with the agreement with Nova Scotia, so I do not understand why the member of Parliament opposite continues to spread doubt and falsehoods about the Atlantic accord.

Government Programs

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadian businesses are under enormous strain in trying to comply with the mountain of paperwork and red tape imposed on them by government. In budget 2007 our government committed to address the red tape and paper burden on Canadian businesses and individuals by performing a government-wide count of all legislative and regulatory compliance measures by September 2007.

Could the new Secretary of State for Small Business and Tourism inform this House on the status of this important commitment to Canadians?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, this matter is important to the 98% of businesses in this country that are small businesses and in fact to all businesses. Red tape gums up the works of the engine of the economy.

Our government, for the first time in a long time, because the former government completely ignored this situation, is getting to work to deal with this. Our commitment is to reduce the paper burden by 20% by 2008. We are well on track to do that and have the full support of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Conservative Party of Canada

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative spin machine has its grubby fingerprints over every aspect of the public service. Government websites that are meant to provide public information are now being used to sell the divisive and wrong-headed throne speech of the government. When people go to the Environment Canada weather website to find out if it is going to rain today, they should not have to worry about being deluged with blarney from the PMO.

My question is simple. Why is the government using taxpayers' dollars to sell a partisan and wrong-headed agenda to Canadians?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, it is something new when the government is doing something wrong when it is trying to communicate with Canadians about what it is doing.

I have to say that when people go to the Environment Canada website I suspect it is because they care about the environment. They want to know what the government is doing about the environment: what we are doing to clean up our air by introducing mandatory targets for emissions, what we are doing to clean up Canada's water, and what we are doing to protect Canada's endangered species. They are looking at that and they are saying, “Finally, a government that is taking action for the environment”.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a dismal drizzle.

Where is the accountability in this House? Whether it was the failed media spin bunker in the shoe store or the use of promotional tag lines on government websites, the government seems to believe that taxpayer money and public programs are there to be used as a private partisan war chest.

This is an abuse of public trust. Where is the accountability?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the accountability is that we are telling Canadians what the government is going to do. That is what accountability is about, because this is a government that tells Canadians what we are going to do and then we deliver and do it.

Equalization Payments

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, not only did the government sign a phantom side deal with Nova Scotia that did not even honour its promise, but after years of preaching about the evils of side deals, the government announced the deal one day after Danny Williams won a massive mandate to fight the Prime Minister.

Coincidence? I think not.

It is becoming quite clear that this side deal is not worth the paper that it is not even written on. Why did the government announce it so blatantly as to smack Newfoundland and Labrador right square in the chops? Why? And what happened to the evils of these side deals?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question from the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, the hon. member would know that Newfoundland and Labrador has a great deal under the accord. In 2005, for the first time, it received 100% of its offshore. He would also know that as the deal is written it will lose that when it loses equalization.

Therefore, the issue is that under the new equalization agreement Newfoundland will be the chief beneficiary of 50% of its offshore revenues. The new deal is a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. The old deal was a good deal for Newfoundland—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

Health

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is widely known that Canadians are experiencing a problem with obesity and that the programs that were formerly in place to combat this problem were allowed to lapse by the previous government.

Could the Secretary of State (Sport) inform the House on what our government is doing to help Canadians get and maintain their activity?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the previous Liberal government cancelled ParticipACTION. The Minister of Health and I this week relaunched ParticipACTION.

We are encouraging Canadians to become more aware of leading active, healthy lifestyles. This is a contribution of $5 million over two years. We are committed to supporting sport and promoting physical activity.

Securities

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again the federalist parties are ganging up on Quebec. The Minister of Finance, encouraged by the NDP, is determined to create a Canada-wide securities commission. What is more, we learn that in the other place, a Liberal has tabled a bill to set up a single securities regulation system, which would replace the regulatory systems in Quebec and the provinces.

The unanimous position of the National Assembly is final. Quebec's finance minister has said yet again that this is a jurisdiction exclusive to Quebec and the federal government has no business interfering in it.

Will the Minister of Finance stop this harassment?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that Canada is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have a common securities regulator.

It is all about competition, providing competitive advantages for people who are involved in our economy. We realize that the provinces need to be consulted on this, which is why the finance minister will establish a panel to look it over.

Public Service

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every day Canadians are being squeezed when it comes to family time, and Statistics Canada confirms this. Canadian workers spend 45 fewer minutes with their families each work day than they did 20 years ago.

Ontario recently announced a family holiday in February, but the Conservative government has decided to exclude federal employees from this much deserved holiday. Clearly, this is unfair.

Will the government reverse its decision so federal employees can honour the same kinds of commitments that they want to with their families and be able to spend family time together? Will that family guy over there allow federal employees the same rights as the other families in Ontario?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by correcting the hon. member. In fact, the government has done no such thing.

Collective agreements, over which we do not have unilateral control, indicate which employees are covered by which holidays.

We in fact provide 11 holidays to our federal employees, whereas the province of Ontario only provides 10, so there is an additional day. I hope the member is not suggesting that we take one of those holidays away from our public servants, many of whom live in his own riding.

However, no, we will not unilaterally overwhelm, change and strip away the collective bargaining agreements that are in place, and I hope the member would not suggest we do so.

Forestry Industry

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's forestry industry continues to sink deeper into one of the worst crises in its history and the government is doing nothing about it. Worse yet, the government, with support from the Bloc, adopted a sellout agreement on the softwood lumber dispute. This agreement now allows the United States to attack federal and provincial programs that are designed to help Quebec's industry.

Why did the government, with help from the Bloc, choose to defend the interests of the U.S. at the expense of Quebec's forestry workers?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech did recognize the pressures facing the forestry industry.

We have recognized the importance of the forest industry to the Canadian economy. In the last year and a half we have moved on several fronts. We have resolved the softwood lumber dispute, which the previous government was unable to resolve. We have launched the forest industry long term competitiveness initiative. We have implemented the mountain pine beetle program where that has been a problem in the forest industry. We are supporting new energy initiatives as well.

We have clearly supported the forest industry and we will continue to do that.