Debates of March 26th, 2007

The Budget

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Health a question about his patient wait times guarantee.

I come from a northern riding that is remote and rural. People must travel extensive distances to even get to a hospital. Sometimes the expense runs to $2,000 or $3,000 one way to get to a hospital. Many times we do not have specialists or health professionals to deal with the needs of various patients and the various conditions they are afflicted with.

This is a very serious question. How does this patient wait times guarantee help a person in the small community of Black Tickle on the south coast of Labrador? I do not see anything in the budget that will help that particular person get better health care. Could he answer that, please?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully disagree with my hon. friend and say that this budget has a $1 billion fund that will be of assistance to building capacity in areas where the provinces want to work with us on a patient wait times guarantee.

Let us take the case of Newfoundland and Labrador and the area it wants to work with us is cardiac care. In that case, for the next while we will be building up capacity, whether it is ensuring we have the doctors and nurses, the information technology or the managerial capacity, we will ensure that when we declare a guarantee on cardiac care in Newfoundland and Labrador we can deliver on the promise. The provinces and territories told me that there was no use making a promise unless we can deliver on them. I agree with them, and that is what this budget does.

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

Mr. Speaker, as he is the minister for northern Ontario, I would like to talk about the complete failure we have seen right across northern Ontario in terms of rural municipal infrastructure. After years of underfunding, our communities have been left with debt payments on infrastructure that most tax rolls simply cannot meet.

He has heard me speak many times about the failing of commerce, the failing of other programs and the lack of infrastructure support from the federal government. However, I want to ask him a specific question because we have talked about this case many times. Larder Lake and Virginiatown have been waiting and looking for help, can those two communities expect help from his government, yes or no?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, with this new budget there is 33 billion more dollars put into infrastructure programs for the entire country. It means that places in Timmins—James Bay and places throughout northern Ontario will get their fair share. Part of my job is to ensure that is the case and I am quite confident it can be the case.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House. The question is on the amendment.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #138

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the amendment lost.

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

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have raised the issue of cluster bombs on several occasions, on the 1st and 16th of February. I also had sent out several press releases on this issue on the 19th to the 23rd.

The issue really is one of leadership. After the UN discussions on the convention on certain conventional weapons failed in November 2006, the government of Norway decided to take leadership and to look at Canada and the Ottawa convention on land mines in 1997 as a model to deal with this issue.

There is no question that cluster bombs are indiscriminate. They kill up to 90% of unintended targets, including civilians, often children. Vietnam and Laos are still affected by these today. Because they are bright and small, people pick them up and the bombs explode.

I had asked the government to show real leadership. Two weeks prior to the meetings on February 21 in Oslo, the government still had not made up its mind as to whether or not it would be attending. The real issue was if the government was going to attend and what it was going to do there. Was it going to be there showing leadership with real proposals on dealing with this issue?

Over 122 countries had supported the land mines ban, and this was another opportunity for Canada to be a leader. This is a Canadian values issue, dealing with the indiscriminate killing of civilians, particularly women and children, yet two weeks prior to the meetings, the government was still hesitant as to whether it was going.

In the end, 46 states in Oslo agreed to move forward on a ban on these initiatives by the end of 2008. Of course, I would have liked to tell the House what the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Foreign Affairs proposed, if anything, at Oslo. Unfortunately, I could not get any information from foreign affairs or from the minister's office, nor was anything on the website.

The fact is that the devastation from cluster bombs occurs worldwide.

The United States did not attend. Japan opposed it. Poland opposed. But 46 states agreed that this was a very important issue for people. I am only asking the government to show some leadership and say what kind of constructive proposals it would have in order to work with our allies and like-minded states to get a ban on this.

At the foreign affairs standing committee, a Conservative member opposed a motion on this subject put forward by a member from Halifax. The government did not show support until the last moment. Finally, Earl Turcotte, the director of the mine action and small arms team at foreign affairs went. I am pleased that someone from the government did go, but I am disappointed that again it was not someone at the level I would have expected on such an important issue that affects so many people around the world.

Leadership is needed on this issue. One of the Canadian success stories is the land mines treaty. The question that comes to mind is, does the government have a clear policy on this issue? Even though Canada signed, what is the policy? Why have we not signed treaties with other countries on this? Where is the leadership? Why is it that we have not been able to come to the fore?

It is clear that the Norwegians were trying to model the conference on what we did back in 1997. I would urge the government to keep the House informed on the process. It is very important. It is important for women. It is important for children. It is important for everyone. I hope to hear an answer.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Richmond Hill for raising this important humanitarian issue.

As members may be aware, cluster munitions typically contain a large quantity of submunitions that can blanket a whole wide area in a short period of time. They can be both air dropped and ground launched.

When cluster munitions fail to detonate, unexploded submunitions become explosive remnants of war and pose a grave danger to civilians and a serious obstacle to sustainable development for decades after a conflict has ended.

I would like to make Canada's position on cluster munitions clear to the House. The use by Canadian Forces of any weapon, including cluster munitions, would be subject to prior reviews to ensure full respect for international humanitarian law. The Canadian Forces have not yet had operational situations where cluster munitions were required nor have they ever been used for training purposes.

The Canadian Forces recently destroyed its entire stockpile of MK-20 Rockeye cluster munitions. The Canadian Forces currently hold 155-millimetre dual purpose improved convention munitions which are ground delivered cluster munitions. These munitions are in the process of being destroyed.

On November 16, 2006, the Norwegian foreign minister, noting the inability of the UN convention on certain conventional weapons, or CCW, to adequately address the cluster munitions, invited interested parties and representatives of the civil society to meet in Oslo in early 2007.

Norway later formally invited states prepared to move toward a new instrument to meet in Oslo on February 22-23, 2007. On February 2, 2007, the Minister of Foreign Affairs accepted Norway's invitation for Canada to attend the meeting. A delegation comprised of representatives of DFAIT and DND represented Canada in Oslo.

The Canadian delegation approached the discussions in Oslo with an open mind and a clear objective of reducing the negative humanitarian development impacts on the misuse of cluster munitions.

Canada agreed to the Oslo declaration issued on February 23 at the end of the meeting because we share the goal of reducing the negative humanitarian and development impacts of certain types of cluster munitions. We entered the following caveats: This may not be possible until late 2008; and, we understand this to refer to those categories of cluster munitions that harm civilians contrary to accepted principles of international humanitarian law. We are agreeing to participate in the process without prejudice to the outcome of subsequent negotiations.

Further work on the cluster munitions initiative would be carried out in Lima, Peru in May 2007; in Vienna, Austria in November or December; and, in Dublin, Ireland in early 2008. Canada expects to participate in all of these meetings.

Canada's participation in the meeting in Norway was warmly welcomed by states, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations, despite qualifications in the Canadian position which were clearly communicated.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would highlight for the parliamentary secretary that landmines, like cluster bombs, are indiscriminate, and that they, by their very nature, kill innocent civilians without regard. The fact is that they do not care whether one is a combatant or non-combatant, a farmer, a business person or a child at play.

The real issue is that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister of the country should have stepped up to the bat early and not decided, relatively at the last minute, to say whether or not we would participate. Landmines or cluster bombs, it is the same issue and the same problem. We need to deal with this and Canadian leadership and values on this issue were very important. I was disappointed at the failure of the Prime Minister and the foreign minister to take the initiative.

At the same time, Canada has now signed and I hope the parliamentary secretary and the government will now follow up and keep the House informed because it is a critical issue.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I share with my colleague the impact of cluster bombs on civilians and on humanitarian law. I agree with him that those are the ones that need to be addressed under treaties to ensure they do not harm civilians. The objectives are the same.

I would like to tell my hon. colleague that Canada is participating in this international convention. However, to make it effective we all need to participate. It is all right if Norway has taken the initiative on this. The main issue is that Canada is participating and will continue to participate in the coming years to ensure there is a ban on cluster weapons that will affect civilians on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Canada will be fully engaged and I will keep the House informed of current progress on this matter.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for this opportunity to further illustrate that the government is not fulfilling its obligations to properly manage the programs that Canadians need and deserve.

The primary issue we are addressing this evening is the Conservatives' mishandling of the summer career placement program.

For months and months, students and organizations across Canada have been forced to wait in limbo to find out if there would be funding for the important summer career placement program.

Organizations, like the Boys and Girls Club in my riding of Davenport, have been left in limbo and unable to plan for their summer programming.

If the Conservatives had introduced a new program, perhaps the delay might be understandable, even if it is still unacceptable. However, it instead announced a repackaged, watered down and underfunded program that inevitably will leave many volunteer, not for profit organizations unable to provide desperately needed services to their communities.

It seems that in its haste to appear green, the Conservative government is simply recycling old programs while at the same time stripping them of their needed funding.

Let me be absolutely clear. If there are ways to make programs better, then all the better and I will be supporting them, but funding should not be cut for programs that help those most in need.

We see this trend in almost every file, from the environment, to student jobs, literacy, women's equality, and the list goes on. In program after program, the Conservatives are undermining Canadians' social programs and then telling Canadians that they are putting new investments into them.

If the government is going to undermine important programs for the neediest communities, it should at least have the courage to own up to them and allow Canadians a clear decision on its performance.

When will the government reinvest the money that it has cut back into student jobs, literacy, women's programs and the like?

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

Mr. Speaker, when the member talks about what Canadians want and what the Conservatives have not delivered, I would like to tell him what Canadians saw in a government that was different for over 13 years. It was different from their values and different from themselves. For 13 years they saw Liberals growing increasingly old, tired and corrupt.

Canadians had enough. They were sickened when watching the news each night to learn how Liberals illicitly passed brown envelopes stuffed with money to their friends and Liberal insiders. They certainly were not about to go along with a Liberal scheme to institutionalize their culture of entitlement to form a summer jobs program.

Canadians looked for someone who would stand up to the Liberals. They wanted a government that would stand up for them. They wanted a government that reflected their concerns and values, so they chose the Conservatives to form their new government.

One of our first priorities was restoring public confidence in the government. This was done by passing anti-corruption legislation in the form of the Federal Accountability Act, although Canadians would be disappointed with any government that thinks the work of cleaning up after the Liberals ends there.

Canadians wanted the government to clean up the things they knew were wrong with the summer career placement program. Canada Summer Jobs does just that.

Canada Summer Jobs is a new initiative that Canadians are finding better reflects who they are and what they want to see in the student job program. It preserves 100% of the funding, $77.3 million, that went to the non-profit sector under the previous program. It puts an end to subsidies for big businesses that would be creating those positions anyway. Most importantly, it gets rid of the Liberal culture of entitlement by making decisions more transparent and more accountable.

Canadians want their government to support not for profit organizations that deliver community swim programs, summer camps and services at local galleries and museums. We understand that and we listened. That is why we preserved 100% funding for not for profit organizations.

Canadians appreciate that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have created a strong economy, with 30 year lows in unemployment, but they also understand that some regions are still struggling and some Canadians face barriers to accessing jobs.

So does their government. We have listened to Canadians, which is why we put resources where they are most needed. We are focusing resources on students who live in areas of higher unemployment and small urban centres with areas of high crime and on young people with disabilities, members of visible minorities and aboriginal students.

Canada Summer Jobs bases decisions on objective criteria: jobs that could not otherwise be created; students who would not otherwise find work as a result of where they live or the barriers they face; and high quality, career related job experiences.

Under the Liberals, over a quarter of a million dollars went to Safeway. More than that still went to Wal-Mart. Canadians do not believe these multinational companies needed a wage subsidy. These companies, along with several others, volunteered in a departmental survey that they would be hiring students in any event.

Taking a look at the criteria that are considered, it is worth noting what is not considered. No longer is the process dominated by the input of MPs. Canadians are tired of pork-barrel politics and they are tired of hearing things like how the colleague of the member for Davenport, the member for Brampton—Springdale, secured almost $25,000 for the Ford plant in her riding. They are tired of being asked to pretend that the over $20,000 she approved for Bacardi produced a meaningful work experience.

Canadians want value for their money and they want valuable experience for students. Their new government is investing almost $86 million in Canada Summer Jobs.

Transparency and accountability are key to Canada summer jobs. I know this will seem foreign to the member, but employers will be assessed--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Davenport.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe you can tell me and you can tell the member opposite how the government is listening. Every single not for profit organization that I have spoken with in my riding and across the city of Toronto is not happy with the present decision of the government.

They were never consulted. Nobody knew what was happening to the program. They actually thought the government was going to cancel the program because it refused to consult with any organization that was actually interested in and knew about this type of program.

This is a program that helps students. It helps build young people into stronger citizens in our society and encourages them in the job training market.

It has been extremely useful in my riding of Davenport. In fact, every not for profit organization in my riding has applied for these types of programs. They were left in limbo. Only at the very last minute did they find out the program was still in existence. By then, I believe, the deadline had already passed. It was an extremely unfair process that did not involve any consultation with any not for profit organization.

I am shocked to hear the member opposite saying that the government is listening. Listening to whom? Let--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not even believe that. I am sorry the Liberals are troubled by the end of the culture of entitlement. I am sorry they cannot see the corruption Canadians found in their old summer replacement program. I am sorry they are finding it so hard to be in opposition without this remnant of pork barrel politics that keeps their instincts sharp.

For the rest of Canadians, I am pleased to say that we have delivered what they want. The same amount of funding for the non-profit sector is there. We understand and value the work of non-profit employers that rarely have access to other sources of funding and consistently create high quality jobs.

Canadians know and have pointed out that public and private sector employers have access to other sources of funding. Students are enjoying Canada's strong labour market. Opportunity is already there.

For those who face barriers, Canada summer jobs benefits students in communities across the country, especially remote and rural communities and those communities experiencing high unemployment and high crime rates. Canada summer jobs is there for students with disabilities, aboriginal students and others who need it.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, on November 24, I questioned the government about its election commitments to Labrador, especially regarding transportation, the base and so forth.

In particular, I asked about funding which our former Liberal government reserved for a new airport terminal at Goose Bay, Labrador's air hub. This funding of $9 million was part of the Goose Bay package which the Liberal government had announced exactly one year earlier on November 24, 2005. Sad to say, it is supposedly the only piece of that package which has survived the Tory cuts.

We as a government also committed $25 million for threat emitters, a significant enhancement to the Goose Bay training range. Where is that money now?

We committed to a night conventional strike exercise, which was cancelled by the current Conservative Minister of National Defence last year.

We approved permanently stationing a Canadian Coast Guard ship, the former J.E. Bernier, in Labrador waters, based at Goose Bay. That project, worth $96 million, was scrapped by our own Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last fall, the ship was sold off by Crown Assets.

So much for federal presence in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We approved a $20 million Goose Bay diversification fund, administered by ACOA. That funding was cut by the ACOA minister, or Kevin MacAdam, whoever is in charge over there.

We approved $9 million for the airport terminal. The money is supposedly still there. ACOA says it is still available, but Transport Canada cannot find it. One would have to ask if they have checked under couch cushions to see if they can find that money. What is the holdup? Why is it not being spent to overhaul or replace one of the most outdated, inadequate airport terminals in the country?

The people of Labrador were almost tricked with a bait and switch in the last election.

The Tories promised federal cost-shared funding for the Trans-Labrador Highway, funding that has now failed to appear in two consecutive Conservative budgets.

Goose Bay was promised a rapid reaction battalion and an unmanned aerial vehicle squadron. It was promised boots on the ground.

The current Minister of National Defence has spent the past year backtracking and watering down his so-called commitments.

In any event, the Tories have failed to put the government's money where their political mouth is. The budget of last Monday contains nothing for Goose Bay.

The Conservatives promised to keep military flight training in Goose Bay. They promised no decline in base employment. They promised vigorous marketing efforts. What happened to those promises?

In short, we have seen the Tories scuttle every positive thing that our former Liberal government put forward for Goose Bay and for Labrador generally. In return, we have been given a litany of promises that the Conservatives have no intention of keeping. Even if they wanted to, there is no money in the budget to keep them.

As a wise person once told me, they are “writing cheques with their mouth that they can't cash”.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to confirm whether there is funding for the airport. Where are the troops? Where are the dollars for roads? Where are the promises that they made to the people of Labrador, and specifically to the people of Goose Bay?