Debates of April 1st, 2008

Court Challenges Program

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the opposition leader. I wish I could have congratulated him on two counts—once for the motion he tabled today—but I cannot congratulate him on voting against the Bloc Québécois motion, which was also about language rights. Well, one out of two is better than nothing.

The Bloc Québécois has always been extremely supportive of the court challenges program. My former colleague from Saint-Lambert, Maka Kotto, put forward a motion in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to study the issue. I believe that our official languages critic, the member for Gatineau, together with the member for Acadie—Bathurst, also put forward a motion to clarify that pretty unbelievable decision. Such a lack of awareness is unimaginable. How can anyone be that heartless, apathetic, intolerant and out of touch with the needs of official language minority communities?

Philosopher and writer Paul Valéry said that the greatness of a civilization is measured in its treatment of minorities. This government's record on that score is abysmal. One of the first things it did was abolish a program with a proven track record. In the early 1980s and again in 2003, independent experts—not people from Heritage Canada or the Department of Justice or the Official Languages Secretariat—evaluated the program and found that the cost-benefit ratio, that is, the investment of public dollars relative to the benefit obtained, justified keeping the court challenges program, which, I would note, cost about $5.6 million per year.

Imagine how heartless, how lacking in compassion for minorities one would have to be to cut that program. And then the Prime Minister stands up in this House and says that his government will not introduce unconstitutional legislation. How unworthy of a government leader. That a government leader can be that irresponsible is beyond anyone's comprehension for two reasons.

First, it is not because a government believes that an act is constitutional that it will not be invalidated by the courts. I know that when a Memorandum to Cabinet is presented, the Minister of Justice must sign a legal document indicating that the act in question is constitutional, according to the officers and lawyers of his department. That goes without saying, and it is the same with regulations.

However, as we all know, certain acts have been declared unconstitutional because the legal system evolves. A provision can be interpreted in a certain way in 1993, and in a different way in 2003.

Let us consider, for example, the tobacco regulations. I was a member of the House of Commons when the Minister of Health at the time, the current member for Sudbury, tabled the regulations. Of course, when she was defending the provisions for plain-packaged cigarettes, she thought the regulations were constitutional. However, that did not stop the Supreme Court from invalidating part of the regulations.

Second, part of the role of the court challenges program is to establish test cases that will advance the rights of certain minority groups.

Let me give another example.

I was a member of this House back in 1995. I may have a baby face, but I have been sitting in this House for 14 years. I am one of the deans of the House and have much experience, despite my young age.

Back then, the government refused to recognize civil marriage rights for same-sex couples. I tabled a motion that was ultimately defeated. I remember clearly that Mr. Alfonso Gagliano was government whip back then, and that, in an unprecedented move, he had called a vote on a Monday morning. I have only once voted on a Monday morning, and it was on my motion to recognize civil marriage rights for same-sex common-law partners. All the Liberal ministers refused to show up to vote, all but one who, let it be said, was quite brave in her day. It was Sheila Copps, the member for LaSalle—Émard's good friend.

In 1994, any challenge to a law extending civil marriage rights to same-sex couples would have surely succeeded. Yet, in 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized civil marriage rights for same sex couples.

Therefore, a government cannot maintain that it will never bring in unconstitutional legislation, because one never knows how the law will evolve. Indeed, it is the role of the Supreme Court of Canada, and of provincial courts of appeal, to shape the law. That is why the judicial and the legislative branches must interact, so that new law may emerge and that we may influence each other, while still, of course, respecting the autonomy of the courts and the autonomy of parliamentarians.

Without the court challenges program, some battles fought by communities would not have been possible. When people go to court, hundreds of thousands of dollars may be at stake. In the case of the Montfort Hospital, everyone is aware of the courage displayed by Ms. Lalonde, and everyone remembers that the “very conservative” government of Mike Harris was to Ontario what Jurassic Park was to cinema. We are well aware of the fact that the Mike Harris government wanted to deprive the francophone community of access to health care services in French, and had it not been for the public funding of the Montfort Hospital, that facility would have been closed.

We should remember that some current ministers were member of Mike Harris' cabinet, and I am thinking, among others, of the Minister of the Environment who, as we know, performed very poorly as a minister. The current Minister of Finance was also a member of Mike Harris' government.

As we can see, this despicable right wing conservative party has a score to settle with collective rights, and it does so by targeting a tool that has enabled minorities to make considerable progress. This is beginning to look like a vendetta against the court challenges program. Shame on the government! I hope that minorities will remember this insensitive government, which treats them with contempt.

I mentioned the case of the Montfort Hospital, but I could also give the example of handicapped people. We are well aware that it is not easy to structure public services for handicapped people. This situation has made it necessary to organize court challenges that have allowed these people to see their situation improve.

So, I say shame on the government. May voters ensure that this despicable government never gets a majority. They can count on the Bloc Québécois to see that this never happens.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion presented by the leader of the Liberal Party regarding the court challenges program. In the last part of his speech, he said that if the Liberals are elected, they would double the funding. I hope this does not mean that they will double their efforts to break the law governing minority rights.

The court challenges program served minorities across the country. Whether to tackle the problems facing official language minorities, that is, anglophones in Quebec or francophones in the rest of Canada, or problems facing gay and lesbian people, women's groups or aboriginal groups, everyone used the court challenges program to be able to fight in court and see justice served.

As our Bloc Québécois colleague just mentioned, the court challenges program was important for minorities that won cases they never could have won otherwise. As we have seen, it is not just large organizations with a lot of money that can fight in court and win. We saw the example of Ms. Lalonde, president of SOS Montfort, with all the work that was involved. She even told the Standing Committee on Official Languages that it was the $75,000 received from the court challenges program that in the end helped SOS Montfort win its case.

But the Conservatives suddenly cancelled the court challenges program. I thought that was despicable. Furthermore, they said they could not accept the fact that they were giving money to people who were fighting the government in court. The Minister of the Environment said so right here in the House of Commons. As my Bloc colleague was saying, that same minister was part of the government of Mike Harris, who wanted to close the Montfort Hospital. These are the same people. There is also the Minister of Finance, as I already mentioned in my speech concerning a report on court challenges by the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

It is even worse than that. We have seen what has happened in Fredericton, not so long ago. Mr. Doucet of l'Université de Moncton defended a case. The government not only went to court to prove that it had the right to cut the court challenges program, but it even said to the judge that if it won the case, it wanted the community to pay. The government wanted the people who took it to court to assume all the expenses. It was not enough to say that it would no longer support the organizations wanting to seek justice before the courts, it wanted to ask the judge to make them pay all the legal costs.

In court, it was interesting to hear the argument of the Conservative government. Its representatives told the judge that it was up to the government itself to decide how to spend its money for the minorities, not to the court. They added that if people were not happy, they should not vote for them. It was inconceivable. The Conservatives told the judge that, in Ottawa, they were the ones making the laws and that if they violated them, people only had to wait four years to kick them out and seek justice. They even said to the court that it should not exist in Canada. In my opinion, it was insulting for the Canadian justice system. It really was an insult to the court, in Fredericton.

We need only think of Ms. Paulin who was arrested by the RCMP in Fredericton. She fought her ticket, which was in English only, and argued that she was unable to obtain service in French in the only officially bilingual province in Canada. The RCMP is a federal police force though. When Ms. Paulin challenged the way she was treated by the RCMP, the federal government said it was a provincial not a federal matter. The case went to court once again. The federal government said that the RCMP was indeed involved, but that it was providing its services to the province of New Brunswick. The government could therefore violate New Brunswick law because the province was paying the RCMP.

The RCMP is the symbol of the federal government and of Canada. If it is paid by the province, it has the right to contravene the law and we do not get involved.

The case went to court once again and we waited for an answer. Finally an agreement was reached. The RCMP was to respect New Brunswick's law and provide services in both languages.

The court challenges program helped settle this case. Without it, Ms. Paulin of Tracadie-Sheila would never have been able to afford to go to court. These negotiations would never have taken place and the agreement with New Brunswick to respect both its official languages would not have come about.

We should take a look at the cases that have been won. There are those involving women, for example. Women went to court as a minority that did not obtain justice. They won their case. So did the First Nations. There was the case of the disabled who wanted to board a CN train that was not accessible. They too used this program. There are many such cases.

If we do not give our minorities the possibility to have the law enforced, if the government says that it will deprive us of the main tool that can help us get justice done, we are heading the wrong way. That important program got $5.6 million. It has been an important program for the minority groups in Canada, namely for PEI and Nova Scotia schools.

Earlier, I talked about the RCMP in New Brunswick. We could talk about a lot of things that happened in that province.

Consider for example the Ontario schools. When I went to Sudbury as part of a national tour on official languages, people said that it was thanks to the court challenge program that they got the right to study in their own language. I am thinking here about the Collège Boréal in Sudbury. It is through battles fought by the French languages organizations with the help of the court challenge program that they finally won their case and that they finally can get the services in their language. The same thing happened in Manitoba, B.C., Saskatchewan and Alberta, that is everywhere we went.

There is something regrettable in all of this. Earlier the Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages was talking about the federal government's action plan, but he did not say that the government's action plan had expired on March 31. Today is April 1. The action plan is no longer in effect. It has expired. And yet, the government is giving no indication of what it is going to do about it.

The Conservative parliamentary secretary did not say that no money was allocated in the budget for the action plan. He said that money would come later, as though minorities were not important. The government's action plan and the money will come later. The government had to hire Bernard Lord, the former Premier of New Brunswick, to conduct a study behind closed doors when the parliamentary committee had already done all the work. The parliamentary committee had already travelled across Canada and reported to the House and the minister. The minister already knew everything Bernard Lord presented.

However, Bernard Lord did not say in his report that when he met with Canadians from across the country behind closed doors, that the communities told him that the court challenges program should be reinstated. He did not talk about that at all in his report. He was mum on the whole matter of the court challenges program.

However, when members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages toured the country, all the agencies told us that the top priority was the court challenges program, which provides the means to go to court and seek justice. The linguistic rights we have achieved in Canada were granted by the courts. It was not the government who granted those rights; it was not the Liberal government who granted them to us. The legislation was there, it was violated, and the judges provided us justice. For all those reasons, we are supporting this motion.

We hope the government will see reason one day and understand that it has taken away the ultimate tool from minorities. Whether we are talking about official languages, women's rights or aboriginal rights, every minority in Canada has been affected. This is a loss for Canada and the court challenges program should be reinstated.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I participate in tonight's debate and rise in favour of the motion of my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, on the Conservative government's wrong-headed decision to eliminate the court challenges program.

I was very happy to hear what my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst had to say. I think he quite nicely summed up the situation in our province, New-Brunswick, and emphasized the importance of that program. The member from Hochelaga also spoke, a few minutes ago, of the importance of the program with regards to protecting minority groups across the country.

We have often asked ourselves why a government who had just boasted about having a 13 billion dollar surplus would announce budget cuts only days later. They slashed literacy programs, which has had a very negative effect on many communities in my riding, and killed the court challenges program for what we believe to be purely ideological reasons.

The question of access to justice for minorities such as the Acadians whom I proudly represent in this House, whether it be courts of first instance or the Supreme Court of Canada, has always been important.

As other colleagues have so well noted, this concerns not only the Acadians I represent or the francophone minorities that had to use the court challenges program to assert their rights, but also minorities and other groups all across Canada whose rights are sometimes restricted by a bill that a government or a Parliament passed without realizing its impact on a freedom or a right enshrined in our Constitution.

We have asked ourselves many times why a government, with large budgetary surpluses, would decide to abolish a program as important as the court challenges program but also a program that represented such a small expenditure, and there is no credible explanation. That is why, when the Minister of the Environment, the former president of the treasury board, talked about budgetary restrictions and good fiscal management, and the parliamentary secretary even tried to pretend that same argument a few minutes ago, it simply does not hold water.

To simply cut a program as modest financially and fiscally as was the court challenges program and claim that it was about good fiscal management simply does not make sense. What that was about was an ideology of the Conservative Party, something that had been written about, for example, by people like the Prime Minister's current chief of staff. They, for a long time, have believed that only certain voices should be heard in our courts and only certain groups should have access to the courts as a way to advance their rights.

The cost of litigation can be prohibitive. If it is even bringing a motion or filing an application before a trial division court, it can cost many thousands of dollars for an individual or a group to simply get to the first level of our court process. Ultimately, when an important constitutional or charter right is to be decided, it is often at the Supreme Court of Canada where that decision is made in a way that then binds the lower courts and binds Parliament in a way that cannot be changed.

By the time a case reaches the Supreme Court of Canada, it takes many years to finally be adjudicated upon and decided but it also costs, in many cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars. The government cynically claimed that while it was lawyers who benefited from the court challenges program, that is a rather dismissive and unfortunate attitude to take when a program had done so much to help so many millions of vulnerable Canadians assert their rights before the highest courts of the land.

We have a government that has no belief in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have a government that does not believe that the judiciary should in fact have the right and the obligation to examine acts of government and legislation passed by this House as it stands up to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to other constitutional provisions.

Unfortunately, that was decided by Parliament 26 years ago. Mr. Speaker, you were in the House at the time when that important constitutional amendment took place, the Patriation Act, the adoption of the charter. It was a very proud moment, I am sure, for all parliamentarians who sat in the House on that day. I know my father, who sat with you, Mr. Speaker, in the House in those days in the 1980s, often told us that one of his proudest moments as a member were those historic debates and those important votes where a Liberal government, with the support of the New Democrats at the time, advanced the rights and the institutions of democracy in a way that no previous Parliament had been able to do.

We now have a government that has never fully accepted in Canada that there is a role for the judiciary in the adjudication of rights. That is why we have seen bizarre examples where it will seek to load up committees to review lawyers' applications as to whether they are qualified to sit on the bench. That can only be done for ideological reasons.

As I have already said a few minutes ago, we strongly believe that the court challenges program did a great deal to support minority language communities across the country, not just francophones in a minority situation outside Quebec, but also Quebec anglophones.

I have the privilege to be the desk mate of the hon. member for Saint Boniface, Manitoba. This is your province, Mr. Speaker. That hon. member has often spoken to me of the importance of this program and of the contribution that the cases brought before the courts, with the help of the court challenges program, made to education in French in Manitoba.

There were some jurists from New Brunswick at the time. My colleague for Acadie—Bathurst referred to Michel Doucet, who went to Manitoba to support the Franco-Manitobans, to encourage them not to give up and to advance their case before the courts, which moreover eventually gave the francophones of Manitoba far more rights.

One wonders why the government would decide one day to do away with this program. The only reason can be that we have a government that does not believe in the Charter of Rights, that does not have much interest in backing minorities in Canada, and that is worried that some day a judge, or the Supreme Court of Canada, is going to give equality rights to same sex couples, for example.

We have seen historical court and appeal court decisions on equality rights for same sex couples regarding civil marriage. We found that to be a wholly appropriate expenditure for a court challenges program to support Canadians in standing up for their rights and claiming what has been their due for a very long time.

In an open and pluralistic society, where some inequalities still remain, a program like the court challenges program is essential. A few minutes ago I was proud to hear my leader made a commitment on behalf of our party and say that a future Liberal government will not only reinstate the court challenges program, but will also increase available funding because this was a modest program with a huge demand on it. Increasing and improving its budget will surely be of help to minority communities and others, be they women's groups or parents of disabled children.

We are hopeful the government will come to accept the will of Parliament. When the Prime Minister was leader of the opposition he spoke often about the importance of the government respecting the will of Parliament. I hope we have a vote in the House that will encourage and call upon the government at one point to do the right thing. We have a bizarre situation where the government insists on abandoning a program that has in fact done a great deal of good.

This is an important debate and I am glad my colleagues have had a chance to speak to it. It is a debate that we will continue because in the election campaign Canadians will remember what action the government took with respect to minorities, including the minorities who I represent in my constituency.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has been designated as non-votable, the order is now dropped from the order paper.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the new chair of the National Capital Commission recently spoke publicly in favour of urban development in the national capital region greenbelt. An outcry followed.

As a member from the national capital region, I rose in this House to state my opposition. This vision is completely at odds with the legacy left by 1950s visionary Jacques Gréber.

The greenbelt covers more than 20,000 hectares. It is a natural area which houses farms, forests and marshlands, but above all, the greenbelt has symbolic value for Canadians and residents of the national capital region. It represents a place of peace and ecological balance.

The greenbelt was developed to create a capital that reflects its citizens. With its spectacular beauty, the greenbelt welcomes visitors in a natural environment. These green spaces provide an exceptional quality of life for city dwellers. Canada's capital is a modern city, and its citizens are very concerned about environmental management.

Why would anyone want to destroy such a unique and irreplaceable part of our heritage? What could possibly justify that stance? I do not understand why the new NCC president would even say something like that. Of course management of urban and commercial development in the region is a major concern, but even minimal destruction of the greenbelt is not acceptable.

The NCC's mandate is to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the national capital region. The NCC has the power to fulfill that mandate. That was the context in which the NCC set about revising the greenbelt master plan.

The NCC faces an enormous challenge in reconciling the region's need for development with its original mandate and mission to plan for the greenbelt. As great as that challenge is, we must preserve the mandate.

The national capital region is home to another jewel: Gatineau Park, a remarkable 30,000-hectare natural preserve. The Gréber plan created Gatineau Park, a protected area that is home to numerous wildlife species. For countless residents and visitors, Gatineau Park is also the site of many recreational activities. Located at the city's doorstep, people enjoy year-round activities in the park.

The region's growing population has resulted in more people visiting the park. Visitors want to take advantage of outdoor activities that contribute to a healthy lifestyle. Increased visitation also puts pressure on Gatineau Park's development plan, because it creates challenges in terms of usage conflicts, preserving natural environments, and controlling access to the park.

The 2005 master plan for Gatineau Park has allowed an update of the vision, the mission and the land planning and use strategies for the park in the coming years. It combines the goal of preserving natural areas and that of using others for recreation and eco-tourism. This is a balanced vision in keeping with the original vision for Gatineau Park and it provides an update on the needs and uses of residents as well as visitors.

There are strong pressures to change the greenbelt and Gatineau Park. Will the Conservatives commit to the present vision and to making it consistent with that of the Gréber plan?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we agree. The national capital greenbelt is a key element of the 1950 Gréber plan that shaped our beautiful capital into what we know and cherish today.

Established in the late 1950s, the greenbelt today consists of 20,000 hectares of land, including farms, forests, wetlands and sites for national research institutions. It is the symbolic expression of rural Canada, of all of Canada, as well as large, ecologically sensitive ecosystems. The greenbelt allows Canadians to experience these very important elements of Canadian geography and society.

This destination for visitors and residents actually attracts more than a million visits per year. Canadians should be very proud of that. I am very proud of that. Today the greenbelt is a unique urban space and is unequalled in any other North American city.

The greenbelt is owned and managed by the National Capital Commission in accordance with strong planning and management tools, such as the 1996 greenbelt master plan.

It is important to note that National Capital Commission chair Mr. Russell Mills said at the first public board meeting, held on November 7, that his comments on the greenbelt, as expressed by my friend, were “stating personal views...and not stating new policy for the NCC”.

That said, the government believes that the model of the greenbelt is still relevant for a large urban area like Canada's capital region, like what we have here today.

We have noted, however, in regard to the recommendations from the National Capital Commission mandate review panel, that the 1999 plan for Canada's capital should be subject to approval by the Parliament of Canada.

Second, the panel recommended that properties comprised in the national interest land mass be reassessed through a process involving public consultations, both the public that lives here and all Canadians, because we are proud of the national capital region.

Also, in keeping with the National Capital Commission planning framework, master plans are reviewed every 10 years. As the current master plan is 11 years old, the NCC has also begun its review and evaluation.

While many recommendations from the initial plan have been implemented, some need to be re-examined in light of today's reality. Over the last decade, many factors, such as increased transportation, infrastructure requirements stemming from urban growth, increased fragmentation pressures, and global agricultural issues, reinforce the fact that the plan needs to be updated.

Through the review of the policies, different perspectives from diverse audiences will be collected during any public consultation process. The National Capital Commission is committed to open the dialogue with Canadians to ensure that the vocation of the greenbelt reflects today's reality.

As parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission, I can assure members that the government believes the model of the greenbelt is still relevant for today's capital region.

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

Mr. Speaker, the greenbelt and Gatineau Park are the lungs of the national capital region. These are also places where we can all enjoy outdoor activities. It would be a mistake, through indirect strategies, to change the mission and the strategies which apply to the greenbelt or to Gatineau Park.

I have in mind a specific piece of legislation, Bill S-227, an Act to amend the National Capital Act. This bill would make the park's ecological integrity a priority and this could mean that other park uses, such as outdoor activities, could be subordinated to ecological integrity. In this regard, people have already stated that they wish to continue using the park for recreational activities.

I will have reason to rejoice when the Conservatives have officially committed to maintaining the territorial integrity of the greenbelt and of Gatineau Park and to maintaining the uses which are presently authorized.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure this member that our intention is especially to keep the National Capital Commission in its entire state of today. I came here almost four years ago from northern Alberta and chose a place to live for my work here. I chose to live in Gatineau, as the member knows. I did that because it reminded me of northern Alberta, which is one of the most beautiful places in the world that I have ever seen.

I use the national capital area. I use it for rollerblading and biking, and yes, I use it for the 45 minute wait every day to come across the bridge. It is a very beautiful area. I love it and I can assure the member that it is going to be kept in the best possible way it can be for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising tonight because of a reply I received from the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. My question was about the extension of employment insurance by five additional weeks. We knew that the Conservative government was delaying renewing this pilot project. The Minister came back with answers, and since then, as we know, the pilot project has been renewed, but certainly not to the complete satisfaction of workers, for two specific reasons. I will come back to this in a moment.

The reason why we have to work to ensure fairness in the employment insurance system is that in many cases, workers are going through hard times, and not just in the last few months. When seasonal workers lose their jobs, they have to be able to pay for groceries and electricity and make the payment on the house, and so on. These are the basics, and they have to be paid even if a worker loses his or her job. Who are the groups who have the most to lose in this situation? Workers certainly lose a great deal, but family members also stand to lose a lot in these situations.

It is all the more deplorable that since the Conservative government came to power, every time we talk about the pilot projects, it is always about whether it will be renewing them or not. This pilot project, which provided a five-week extension to fill what we call the spring gap, was renewed, but when I asked my question, it had only seven days left to go before it ended.

This is not the first time. Since the Conservatives first came to power in January 2006, we have had to fight and push the government repeatedly to ensure that it restores these pilot projects that are so important for our workers, and as I said a moment ago, are even more crucial for their families. Without these measures, the families would not be able to support themselves.

We must always ask why workers and families have to get down on their knees to the Conservative government to have these pilot projects renewed. At the very least, if it had said, in response to the repeated representations we made, that it was going to restore all these excellent pilot projects that the Liberal government initiated and make them permanent, that would at least have been something accomplished. We would not have to keep coming back to the House of Commons every 12 or 18 months and pressuring the government, to ensure that our workers and their families can get the assistance they need.

These are examples. When I asked my question, there were only seven days left in the pilot project, and the holiday season was about to start. Why is the government always trying to show workers and their families that it is the boss, that it has the key of the coffers and that it will give them money when it pleases? These people need help. They do not need to be told to kneel down in front of the federal government. They need help from the government.

We should ask ourselves a question — and I will ask the question directly, then continue. To start with, why is the Conservative government always waiting until the last minute to renew pilot projects related to employment insurance? Second, why is the Conservative government not making these pilot projects permanent? Is it because it would like to completely eliminate them one day? Is it leaving the door open so that, when comes renewal time, it would be easy to just delete them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the question raised by the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche tonight.

As the hon. member is fully aware, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development announced that the Government of Canada would continue the extended employment insurance benefits pilot project until June 6, 2009. This project increases employment insurance entitlement by providing five additional weeks of benefits to claimants, up to a maximum of 45 weeks.

Seasonal workers asked for this and the government delivered. I would hope that my colleague would be happy with that news. The hon. member should be pleased further with the announcement that both Madawaska--Charlotte and Restigouche--Albert are participating in this very important pilot project.

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 at its lowest rate in over 30 years and was hitting 5.8% in January. Employment rates are at record highs. Thousands of jobs are being created every day across this country. In fact, more than 700,000 new jobs have been created since this government was elected almost two years ago, including more than 40,000 in February alone.

However, this government recognizes that all regions are not experiencing this same record growth. That is why we introduced the extended EI benefits pilot project to test a mechanism for helping seasonal workers who need our help.

As with all EI pilot projects, it is important to ensure that the proposed mechanism for fixing this problem will actually achieve these goals. Canadians sent this government to Ottawa to restore sound management and fiscal prudence to our country's most important programs, and this government will do no less.

I would like to point out that the hon. member was in the government for almost a decade and a half, most of the time in a majority situation, and his party did nothing for seasonal workers, except that his party overcharged for EI and misspent those dollars on boondoggles and sponsorships.

Now he asks us to support a pilot project that his government did not implement in its 13 years in power even though it was his party that ignored these same workers about whom he speaks tonight. They were ignored for 13 years. Perhaps he has forgotten about his party and its record, but Canadians have not.

This government has a record to be proud of and we are proud of the supports we have provided to all working families. We are proud to say that this Conservative government is providing ever growing opportunities for all Canadians to participate and succeed in Canada's growing economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, things should be clear, and I will clarify one thing. That the parliamentary secretary says what she likes in a speech is one thing, but for her to say that pilot projects were not created by the Liberal Party of Canada is untrue. The Liberal Party of Canada set up these pilot projects in the field of unemployment insurance. To say the opposite is simply untrue. She should be ashamed of making such statements in front of Canadian citizens.

Can she answer once and for all? Why do workers have to wait until the last minute for pilot projects to be renewed? Why are the Conservatives not even able to make these pilot projects permanent? Is it because, according to their ideology, they will want one day to eliminate the pilot projects which seasonal workers in my riding and elsewhere in Canada need every day?

She just said that the economy is doing well. I invited many times the Prime Minister to come to my riding to see the crisis we have to deal with, but he refused each time.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

As the member well knows, Mr. Speaker, we extended that program. So as he said, his question is out of date. When he started, he asked that question. We have delivered.

This government believes that supporting Canadian workers is the right thing to do.

That is why we have invested $2 billion per year in labour market development agreements with the provinces and territories.

That is why we have invested an additional $500 million a year in training for workers unable to access employment insurance.

This is why we have committed in the 2008 budget to create the Canada employment insurance financing board to ensure the independent management of EI funds for the benefit of workers and employers.

I want to thank my friend for allowing that budget to pass and finally get some results for Canadians. After 13 years of his party's inaction, we did it.

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

Mr. Speaker, thanks to this adjournment debate, I have the opportunity to revisit a question that I asked on December 10 regarding Darfur. As we speak, atrocities are being committed over there to which neither I or any other person can remain indifferent.

People from my riding are regularly showing how concerned they are about human rights both here and abroad. It is for their benefit and for the benefit of the people of Darfur that I rise again today on this subject.

In Darfur, soldiers and militia groups rape and kill civilians with, in the case of the Janjaweed, the guilty support of the Sudan government. According to Amnesty International, we are talking about more than 200,000 people killed, more that 2.2 million internally displaced persons and 280,000 refugees. Thousands of women are systematically raped and opponents are tortured.

If we are at war in Afghanistan to ensure human rights, we have to be coherent and intervene elsewhere as well. We have to intervene in Darfur, especially since more and more observers and the American government, among others, say that a real genocide is taking place. If that is the case, Canada and its allies in the international community would have the legal obligation to protect the people of Darfur.

That means we need to prevent conflicts, we need to intervene if there is a conflict and maintain peace by ignoring the sovereignty of a nation such as Sudan because it does not protect its own people.

By looking into this, we learn that since January 2006, through CIDA, Canada has voluntarily contributed $388 million to peace efforts. I will give members a few figures. This way, I won't have to ask the government to give them to me only to hear it say how extraordinary they are. We have made some voluntary contributions for CIDA, humanitarian aid and early recovery in Sudan, namely $120 million in terms of humanitarian aid and 45 military advisors in terms of human resources. We have also loaned 105 light armoured vehicles—and I did say“loaned”—to Senegal, Rwanda and Nigeria.

It is really not much, but this meagre contribution compares favourably against the complete lack of leadership showed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs who went to Sudan, but did not achieve any results.

The Darfur crisis must be resolved politically above all , and it is up to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to engage all stakeholders, China included, in seeking the solution. China is a particularly important stakeholder because, as we know, it buys 64% of Sudanese oil and is one of the main arms suppliers to the Sudanese government.

Even if the rebel factions find a common basis for negotiations, there is no indication that the Sudanese government will respect any resulting agreement. China can make a difference by forcing the Sudanese government to respect the peace agreements and peace missions. It must be encouraged to take part in a spirit of cooperation.

Given the urgency of the situation, the public is absolutely entitled to know the Canadian government's strategy as far as the Khartoum regime is concerned. One thing is certain: so far, Darfur really has not seemed to be one of the Conservative government's foreign policy priorities.

I ask again: when is there going to be a change, a real change?

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

Mr. Speaker, the situation prevailing in Sudan and Darfur is of great concern to the Government of Canada. Canada believes there has to be a peaceful solution to the conflict in Darfur, as the member has suggested, a situation which puts in jeopardy the security of so many Darfurians and others.

Last week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself visited Sudan in our official capacity. While there, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Canada would invest $755 million for Sudan in 2008-09, including assessed contributions across three pillars of activity: security, diplomacy and aid. This builds upon Canada's existing support of peaceful efforts, humanitarian efforts and early recovery in Sudan for which Canada has provided over $388 million in voluntary contributions since 2006.

What the Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself conveyed to the Sudanese authorities was that better relations with Canada was dependent upon developments with regard to violence in Darfur, the AU-UN mission, UNAMID deployment, human rights and impugnity and the implementation of the CEPA agreement.

Now that the AU-UN hybrid operation in Darfur has taken over the African Union's mission responsibilities, Canada will be a very significant financial supporter of UNAMID. This will include up to $40 million in voluntary support for the enhanced capacity of African troops contributing countries in UNAMID in 2008-09, making us the second largest voluntary financial contributor to the UN-AU hybrid mission.

In addition, Canada is committed to alleviating the suffering of conflict affected populations in Sudan. Since 2006, Canada has provided more than $102 million in humanitarian assistance. Approximately half of those humanitarian assistance funds have been directed to Darfur.

As I said, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself visited Sudan and we went to Darfur. We visited the IDP camps run by the World Food Programme, which gives food to displaced people. There are close to 250,000 displaced people in Darfur.

I was very pleased and happy to see a huge amount of cooking oil donated by Canada. Written in big words were “gift from the people of Canada to the people of Darfur”. Those things make a major difference. That is what Canada is contributing to the humanitarian efforts in Darfur on the ground.

Then the minister and myself visited the UN headquarters, the UNAMID and Canadian Forces. We talked to members of the forces and they told us generally what they needed to help them patrol that area properly.

We have to understand that Sudan is a very complex situation. Nevertheless, Canada is a willing contributor to ensure that the efforts of Canada are spent where there are tangible results. The mission is all about that. That is why, when the foreign affairs minister and myself were in Sudan, we made it clear, in absolute terms, where Canada's money would go and which areas we would support to ensure that there was maximum benefit for the people of Sudan, not only in Darfur but also in southern Sudan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief with this my last question.

Originally --and the minister's spokesperson will recall, because he must have it right before his eyes--, the purpose of my question was to understand why the government had not increased its peace implementation force and made a ten fold increase in its budget for those involved in creating peace by putting themselves at risk. What was keeping him from convincing China to engage in a meaningful dialogue in order to find a real solution?

I appreciate the comments that the spokesperson for the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made this evening, but I would like to hear him tell us what specifically the minister and his staff at Foreign Affairs have done directly in their dialogue with China to get it to truly engage in solving this crisis.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, Canada is contributing $275 million for Sudan in 2008-09.

I do understand the member's concern about using our allies and China to bring peace to Darfur. We have told China that it should be involved in the peaceful efforts in Sudan. I am happy to say that the Chinese have sent in 500 engineers under the UN umbrella to work toward the rebuilding of Sudan. This is the first step that China has taken. We will continue to be in dialogue with China and with all the other partners in south Sudan, Chad, the European Union, and everybody else that has an interest in Sudan.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:06 p.m.)