House of Commons Hansard #21 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.

Topics

Canada Evidence ActPrivate Members' Business

7:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Canada Evidence ActPrivate Members' Business

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canada Evidence ActPrivate Members' Business

7:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Evidence ActPrivate Members' Business

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Evidence ActPrivate Members' Business

7:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Evidence ActPrivate Members' Business

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division is deferred until Wednesday, November 28 just before the time provided for private members' business.

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

7:30 p.m.

Independent

Louise Thibault Independent Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to go back to the question I asked on October 29. My question was for the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development and it was about employment for seasonal workers.

I asked the government whether it planned to allocate funds for provincial programs that would enable seasonal workers to increase their weeks of employment and develop complementary skills. The response I received requires clarification. It was far from satisfactory, particularly because this is a critical issue for workers who have been hit hard by the forestry crisis and the rising dollar.

My request was based on the Employment Insurance Act, which provides for two types of insurance for workers who lose their jobs. The first is benefits to help workers bridge the gap between jobs, a reality that, unfortunately, many have to face. The second is transfers to provinces under agreements that provide for the establishment of employment support programs.

I would like to give you an example. In my riding, a pilot project is helping maple syrup producers hire forestry workers whose wages are covered in part by employment insurance because they are taking a pay cut. Everyone knows that the maple syrup industry pays a lot less than forestry, but the two industries are complementary. Maple syrup producers could not hire these skilled workers without timely financial assistance.

The forestry sector is not the only one affected by seasonal work. Yes, that sector is having problems, and good jobs are being lost in our regions. But there is seasonal work in other economic sectors too, such as tourism, agri-food, fisheries and many others that I could name if I had more time.

These people do not always earn enough money to make it through the off season, so sadly called the “dead season” in French. What these workers have in common is the willingness to work as long as possible each year, and we must recognize that they do want to work. Anyone who has experienced unemployment for any length of time knows that it is much more gratifying and fulfilling to work than it is to be forced to rely on EI benefits. Our regions and our economy need these workers, their expertise and their determination.

It is time to stop telling them that they are no longer needed, that they are going to be relocated, that any measure is good, except keeping them employed. More must be done to ensure that they can continue to earn a living using their skills and expertise, while keeping them as close to home as possible.

This is the kind of measure that people from my region and other regions want. I wish I had more examples to give. Yet, to do this, transfers to the provinces must be increased.

Despite their claims, the Conservative government is doing nothing concrete to respond to this legitimate concern, which I have expressed here on behalf of everyone who has been affected.

What was the government's response to this problem? One short sentence in the Speech from the Throne, to which I have already referred and which states, “Our Government will also take measures to improve the governance and management of the employment insurance account.” That is not enough. We need to see more substance. We know there is a surplus of $2.3 billion in 2007. Some sort of action is needed to help seasonal workers keep their jobs in their own regions.

7:35 p.m.

Blackstrap Saskatchewan

Conservative

Lynne Yelich ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member across the aisle knows, the Prime Minister promised in the Speech from the Throne that we were committed to improving the governance and the management of the employment insurance account.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my Liberal colleagues for their support in getting that throne speech passed so quickly through this House.

Before we discuss anything tonight, it is important that we understand Canada's current employment situation, as these facts are integral to any discussion of the EI program.

Since this government was elected almost two years ago, we have seen an astonishing number of new jobs being created, more than 500,000 to be exact. This year's numbers are looking equally good, with almost 200,000 new jobs being created this year alone. More than one-third, or better than 88,000, of those jobs have been created in the province of Quebec.

In addition, the average hourly wage rose by 2.4% in the first quarter of this year alone and the unemployment rate has dropped to the lowest point in 33 years at 5.8%. This is good news. It goes to shows that the hard work the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have done to help manage our economy is beginning to pay dividends.

Thankfully, we have a labour market where more Canadians are working than ever before and the demand for labour is strong. Opportunities for work are abundant, especially among the skilled trades that are currently experiencing labour shortages across the country.

We have made clear our intention to consider improvements to the EI financing since we formed the government. The Speech from the Throne confirms that we will now be taking measures to improve the governance and the management of the employment insurance account.

That being said, we are concerned about unemployed Canadians who are having difficulty adjusting to the changes in the local labour markets.

The opposition's approach is to propose a pile of unsustainable EI bills: $3.7 million for one bill; $1.1 billion for another; $1.4 billion for yet another. There are 16 more EI bills to come, 9 of which are too complicated to cost, but it is fair to say that they will not be free. There is another $4.7 billion for the remaining seven bills. The cost of these bills would be astronomical and the opposition has supported them all without giving careful study to any of them.

Those bills represent more than $11 billion in new annual spending for the EI account, which would put this program into a deficit within a year and bankrupt this very vital national program.

Canadians are looking to this government to act responsibly and carefully. They want a government that will ensure that the long term viability of the EI system will be protected from this patchwork of proposals made by the opposition, and that is exactly what we are doing.

That is why we are providing financial transfers to the provinces for training through the existing labour market development agreements. The government provides approximately $2 billion per year to the provinces and territories for the EI part II programming to help train unemployed Canadians. Of this funding, almost $600 million goes directly to Quebec. In total, more than 600,000 Canadians are helped each year.

Budget 2007 provided an additional $500 million a year for labour market training, a commitment--

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

7:35 p.m.

Independent

Louise Thibault Independent Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will speak in English, which is something I do very seldom, but it is necessary because I do not think the parliamentary secretary understood what I said or listened to what I said. I find that, on behalf of the people I represent and the people all across Quebec and Canada, very insulting.

I am talking about people who are having problems and what we are hearing from the person across is that there are 500,000 new jobs and it is very promising. I am not talking about the people who will be able to get those jobs. I am talking about people, for example, in the forestry sector who are looking for a way of getting help to continue to work. She should not talk to me about other bills and other things that other parties have done.

This is a direct question for a number of people. What does the government intend to do for these people in particular?

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have her answer. There is more good news. Our government is providing funds to participating provinces and territories for employment programming through the targeted initiative for older workers, a $70 million initiative aimed at helping unemployed older workers in sectors such as forestry and fishing and those living in smaller communities affected by downsizing or closures and ongoing high unemployment.

Let us not let the member tell the House that I am not answering her question. That is the answer.

Of this amount, over $19 million went to her beautiful province of Quebec for projects, 11 of which have been announced so far. Two of these projects will help workers from the hon. member's own riding and represent a joint investment by the Governments of Canada and Quebec. The hon. member did say earlier that she wanted us to work with Quebec. This is it. This is where we have invested. The Governments of Canada and Quebec, with over $1.7 million into--

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for West Nova.

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to ask a question related to the Airbus-Mulroney-Schreiber affair.

Here is what we know. We know that Brian Mulroney accepted $300,000 in cash from Karlheinz Schreiber, who was quite well known to the media at the time, and a notorious figure.

He received that money. Karlheinz Schreiber stated it was negotiated while the Prime Minister was still in office. The former prime minister was driven by the RCMP to Mirabel airport to receive his first $100,000 in cash as an MP. We found that out later.

Then we have Mr. Mulroney telling us in the media lately through a friend of his, Mr. Lavoie, that it is the silliest thing he has ever done.

I do not think it was silly at all. It is one of two things. It is either absolutely stupid or it is crooked.

Even Mr. Mulroney's most ardent detractors have never called him stupid. This was the president of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. This was a prime minister of Canada for two terms. This is the man who brought in the GST and who would have known, if this money received was a fee for service, that he had to remit and charge GST on it.

I do not know if stupid would fit, so that leaves what? That is the question we have to determine here.

That meeting was set up by Fred Doucet. Fred Doucet has been with Mr. Mulroney all through this period. He brought Karlheinz Schreiber into the circle and was part of the gang to remove Joe Clark from office and get Mr. Mulroney the job as prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party.

We have not heard from Mr. Doucet in a while. After 1993, we did not hear not too much. We know he organized a meeting for Schreiber and Mulroney later on, but what we do see is that there has been a resurgence of the man. He is very important now in Ottawa. We do not see very many files touched by the Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency that do not have Fred Doucet's name on them.

Here is what we want to know. What were the links between Mr. Doucet, Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Schreiber and many other people around this from 1980 till 1993?

We also want to know exactly how the government acted, this government, and how this Prime Minister acted when he received a letter from Karlheinz Schreiber highlighting these arrangements. How did he act? Did he turn it over to the RCMP? The leader of the official opposition did. When he got that information, he turned it over to the RCMP. Within 14 days, an investigation was reopened by the RCMP.

The Prime Minister said he had it in his files for seven months and did not look at it. PCO officials, junior people at PCO, dealt with this. They were probably people with one or two weeks' training. They dealt with that letter. They looked at it and said it was unimportant in its suggestion that a former prime minister had done all these mischievous deeds, so it was never given to the PMO. If it was given to the PMO, it would have been very junior people who dealt with it there. The Prime Minister's chief advisers would not have been advised of that.

If the Prime Minister tells me that, I am inclined to believe it, but I do not believe anybody else will. I do not think Canadians can believe that.

When I first started asking questions about this, the Prime Minister said there would be no inquiry. He laughed it off, saying there would not be an inquiry.

After two weeks of media stories and questions being asked by the opposition, he came out with a defensive tactic and said that he would have a third party adviser to tell him how he should deal with it because he did not know. He said he did not know how to deal with it. He does not know how to do his job, so he will have a third party adviser.

Then Brian Mulroney himself called up and called an inquiry, so now we have an inquiry, for which the third party adviser is going to give us the terms of reference.

There are two things we need. We need the terms of reference to be sufficiently wide so that we can look back to 1980--

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform.

7:45 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, we never got a question out of the hon. member for West Nova, but I can try to interpret what he was trying to get at.

Let me just backtrack a little bit and go over the history of what the Liberal Party of Canada has been saying on this issue over the course of the last three to four weeks.

We know that the Leader of the Opposition has a position that there should be a wide-ranging public inquiry examining every aspect of this incident, including the 22 months that our government has been in power.

Contrast that with the former leadership candidate of the Liberal Party, Mr. Bob Rae, the want to be leader who will probably be leader one day, who said, “No, it should not be wide ranging; that is just silly. It should be narrowly focused on the $300,000 payment, alleged payment at least, between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney. Let us narrow it in because that is the only thing that is truly of concern to Canadians”.

Yet a third opinion weighs in from the former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, who says that there should be no inquiry, that there should only be an RCMP investigation.

If we want to capsulize what the Liberal Party is all about these days, those three divergent opinions say it all. The Liberal Party is all over the map on this issue. The only thing we can ascertain with any certainty is that the Liberals are desperately trying to do one thing and one thing only when asking these questions. The Liberals are trying desperately to cover their tracks of all of the activities that they have had with Mr. Schreiber over the course of the last 13 years and are trying in a desperate attempt to smear this government.

We cannot connect the dots because we have no dealings with Mr. Schreiber. This is a 15-year-old case.

But I will say this. Should the eminent Canadian whom we have appointed to come through with some terms of reference, Dr. Johnston, determine that the terms of reference should include a full examination of all of the dealings between governments of the day and Mr. Schreiber, we will be able to investigate, I am sure the inquiry will be able to investigate with some certainty, the dealings between the former Liberal government and Mr. Schreiber.

One thing we know again with certainty, Mr. Schreiber is about one thing: access to power. He wants to be close to people in government. For 13 years after the 1993 defeat of the former Conservative government headed up by Mr. Mulroney, it was the Liberals who were in power. I would like to know some things. I am sure Canadians would like to know some things.

My colleague, the hon. member for West Nova has stated publicly that he has had several lunches with Mr. Schreiber. What did they discuss? What information did Mr. Schreiber pass along to my colleague, the member for West Nova, or was it the opposite? Was it information my colleague passed along to Mr. Schreiber?

Those are things that we know happened: direct connections between Mr. Schreiber and many members of the former Liberal government, when in fact there is no connection between Mr. Schreiber and this government.

The Prime Minister has been quite clear. He did not see any letter written by Mr. Schreiber. The only reason that we have a publicly inquiry right now is that after sworn affidavits were filed in the Federal Court, as soon as that happened, the Prime Minister said, “Then let's have a full inquiry”.

All of the answers to the sordid case will come out in due course, but it will show one thing and probably only one thing: Relationships between Mr. Schreiber and the Liberals are what we should be examining.

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, we welcome that examination. We asked for a full investigation.

The member finds it distasteful that I would interview Mr. Schreiber. Mr. Schreiber is the one who told me at the time that the first $100,000 was given to Mr. Mulroney when he was a member of Parliament. That is precise information that I got out of Mr. Schreiber and that is why I was able to ask those questions in the House.

If the member finds it distasteful that I met with Mr. Schreiber, he should find it appalling that the sitting Prime Minister would meet with Mr. Mulroney at Harrington Lake, at an official government residence. If it is improper for an individual to hand $300,000 in cash, in an envelope, negotiated with a gentleman when he was still prime minister of this country. It is certainly worse than just improper to receive it. For a prime minister to negotiate $300,000 in cash, and as a member of Parliament to receive $100,000 in cash, that is the question that should be answered. Why has the government hidden that for the last seven months?

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, we have not hidden anything, of course, but it is interesting to note the solid defence the hon. member for West Nova has on the character of Mr. Schreiber.

Let us talk about Mr. Schreiber, an individual who for the last eight years has been facing extradition proceedings, and who has, quite frankly, a very questionable and dubious character. He is somebody who says now that he has all this information, but he did not choose to release that information for eight years.

There is only one reason Mr. Schreiber is coming forward with these outrageous claims of scandal: he wants to stay in Canada. He does not want to go back to Germany where he is facing charges of fraud, forgery and bribery.

I do not think any Canadian can justifiably say that they believe a word of what Mr. Schreiber says now. Quite frankly, my main concern, and I am sure this will be reflected in Dr. Johnston's concerns as well, is that I do not think he is going to tell the truth before any inquiry, parliamentary or otherwise, if he appears.

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening, at the time of adjournment, on the pilot project to add five weeks of employment insurance, mainly for seasonal workers who need to make sure not that they can live, but that they can survive and support their families during very tough times, often during the winter.

This pilot project allows workers who have exhausted their employment insurance benefits to receive up to five additional weeks of employment insurance, until their next season of work begins.

Hon. members will recall that this pilot project was established in 2004 by the former Liberal government for a very simple reason: we understood the needs of seasonal workers who were faced with extremely difficult situations. The Liberal government understood this at the time. The pilot project was to run for two years, and the government was to re-evaluate the situation and make the right decision.

Today the situation is such that the pilot project is coming to an end and we have absolutely no answer for our seasonal workers. If it wants to help our families, if it wants to reduce poverty in Canada, then the government must take action. The Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing about this and are clearly forgetting that the people who work every day to provide for their families have to pay mortgages or rent, pay for electricity, gasoline—which is becoming more and more expensive—and groceries every day so their families can eat.

When these seasonal workers have to deal with a work shortage and their employment insurance benefits end, the reality is that they must rely on certain measures in order to survive. That is the responsibility of the federal government, which is pocketing $14 billion in surplus today, but is unable to announce any basic measures to help these families survive.

When we look at the situation, we see that the Conservatives are pushing countless individuals and families into uncertainty. When their employment insurance benefits end, those individuals and families do not know if they will still be able to receive the benefits from the wonderful pilot project the Liberals implemented in 2004.

The Conservatives are pushing families into uncertainty. What a nice Christmas present they are delivering to these families. It is a poisoned gift because the Conservatives are unable to officially announce that this pilot project, that extends employment insurance benefits by five weeks, will be renewed.

I hope this time that I will get a clear and detailed answer. Will the government renew the pilot project on the additional five weeks to close the gap—yes or no? Furthermore, will it make this pilot project permanent so that workers can stop begging for the help they need and have earned by working so hard for these employment insurance benefits?

Will the government finally agree to respond by saying that it will renew this pilot project permanently—not just temporarily—so that families and workers can know where they stand before the holiday period?

7:55 p.m.

Blackstrap Saskatchewan

Conservative

Lynne Yelich ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the questions asked by the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche today because it gives me the opportunity to stand in this House once again and tell Canadians about the good things that this government has done for our economy, our job market and training for workers.

I must start off by pointing out that the hon. member was in government for almost a decade and a half, most of that time in a majority situation, and his party did nothing for seasonal workers. His party did nothing but overcharge the workers with EI and misspent those dollars on boondoggles, sponsorships and scandals. It nothing for the seasonal workers.

He is now asking us to support a pilot project that his government did not implement during its 13 years in power. He does it with a tone of righteous indignation even though it was his party that ignored these same workers for 13 years. Perhaps he has forgotten, but Canadians have not.

This government is proud of its record. We are proud of the supports we provided for the working family that he speaks so passionately about. We are proud to say that this is the government which is providing ever growing opportunities for all Canadians to participate and succeed in Canada's growing economy.

The economy is booming. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have created winning conditions so that more jobs, better wages, and a brighter future can be delivered to all Canadians.

Under the leadership of this government, the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in more than 30 years, hitting 5.8% in October. Employment rates are at record highs and thousands of jobs are being created every day across this country. In fact, 500,000 new jobs have been created since this government was elected almost two years ago, more than 200,000 new jobs this year alone.

There is no better evidence of our robust labour market than the remarkable decrease in the number of long term unemployed. Ten years ago, under his previous Liberal government, 13.5% of all unemployed people remained unemployed for more than a year.

Today, under the leadership of this government, that figure stands at a low of 4.4%. We have made it clear our intention to consider improvements to EI financing since we formed the government. The Speech from the Throne confirms that we will now be taking measures to improve the governance and management of the EI account.

There are currently an array of 19 EI bills at some stage of the legislative process. They total well over $11 billion in new annual spending which would bankrupt the employment insurance program. The Liberals are supporting all of them. That is the Liberal approach to EI reform.

Bankrupting the EI program at the request of the Liberal Party will not be our approach to employment insurance reform.

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, this situation is disgusting.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development just told us that 13 working days from now, seasonal workers will no longer have the five additional weeks they need to make ends meet for their families. The Conservatives are basically telling us that they are not interested in renewing it.

That means that 13 working days from now, anyone collecting employment insurance will no longer be eligible for the five additional weeks to cover the black hole. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development has destroyed all hope that the Conservative government might care even a little bit for families and workers. That is unacceptable. What the Conservative government is telling us tonight is that it does not care at all.

8 p.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, our government's approach to EI has been to ensure that specific changes address specific issues. We have a record to be proud of when it comes to supporting unemployed and seasonal workers.

I would like to remind my hon. colleague that it was this government that acted within months of taking office to put in place: an investment of $70 million in the new targeted initiative for older workers which will help unemployed older workers in vulnerable communities; a pilot project that gives seasonal workers in areas of high unemployment up to 37 weeks of benefits with the equivalent of 12 weeks of work; and lowered EI premiums and increased benefits for all Canadian workers including seasonal workers.

This is our record and this is one of which this government is proud.

8 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

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

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

(The House adjourned at 8:01 p.m.)