Debates of April 21st, 2009

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Sherbrooke on introducing this motion, which calls for support for non-profit bodies. It is crucial to reinstate funding for these bodies, as they play a pivotal role in economic development in Quebec.

Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006, funding for non-profit organizations and for CED in general has decreased steadily. Generally, that means that economic development is not a priority for this government. At times of economic difficulty such as the period we are going through at present, CED should be the main engine of economic development in the regions of Quebec. CED should be ready to invest heavily in non-profit organizations that help small and medium-sized enterprises develop.

Since 2005, when the budget for CED was $444 million, the agency's funding has decreased by 45%. This is a huge reduction for a department whose mandate is economic development.

Another sign that this department is not high on the government's priority list is the number of applications for grants or financial assistance received. In 2006-07, 1,179 applications were received. Because of changes to the eligibility criteria for applicants, the number was down to 596 in 2007-08. In 2006-07, 235 applications were denied. In 2007-08, 223 were denied. But what stands out is that the number of applications that were approved went from 944 to 373. There was a significant decrease in the rate of approval of applications for financial assistance and grants, and it shows the dramatic change this government made in managing Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions.

Obviously, there is the whole issue of eligibility criteria for non-profit organizations. The government has announced that funding will be reinstated for the next two years, but as my colleague for Sherbrooke said, it has not made any change to the eligibility criteria for these programs, which means that 75% of the non-profit organizations in Quebec still will not have access to this funding.

This proves once again that, in the eyes of the Conservatives, the role of the government is not at all to support and to help communities for them to develop and above all to stabilize in a period of economic crisis.

In my view, one glaring number is quite telling. Their success rate in implementing their own programs is barely 4%. The funds barely get to those who need them and this causes a great deal of problems for our regions.

The other evidence, as it were, of the lack of interest or lack of conviction of this government for the economic development agencies is the reduction of these departments in October 2008. They became ministries instead of being full-fledged departments as they were before. To conclude, I would like to mention that subsidies coming from CED, for Quebec, were reduced by $75 million.

I will obviously support the motion tabled by my colleague from Sherbrooke. I hope that the government will take into account the need to give the agency what it needs in order to properly support the regions of Quebec.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will also support the motion of the member for Sherbrooke. In the few minutes allocated to me I will focus on the intervention of the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. I wonder if he sometimes has moments of lucidity. He just told us that the Conservatives never made cuts to the program. Yet, our colleague who just spoke provided data showing that two-thirds of the program and subsidies have been cut.

I listened to the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière read the text prepared for him. It was full of empty rhetoric and platitudes, the stuff typically written by ministers' staff for the puppets who rise in this place. We all remember him, during the election campaign, when he drove a truck—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse has the floor on a point of order.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Canada Economic Development. The member for Outremont will be able to campaign in due course. We are talking about clowns, puppets and trucks in the House. Could we focus on the debate? We are in the midst of an economic crisis. Could the member for Outremont raise the tone of the debate today and not make personal attacks? Otherwise, he will find us in his way.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse raised a point of order concerning the relevance of interventions. If all members who rise to speak could keep in mind the subject at hand, that would be best for the House.

The hon. member for Outremont.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are quite right to remind the House that we must stay on topic. I began by explaining that the NDP supported the motion moved by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I then congratulated our Liberal colleague who had just given some figures demonstrating that, contrary to the completely false statements made by the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, the subsidies were cut by two-thirds.

I was in the midst of reminding the people watching us who the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière was, in order to support my comments concerning the motion moved by the member for Sherbrooke. That was the same member who, during the election campaign, was put behind the wheel of a truck in order to travel around Quebec to insult the democratic choices made by Quebeckers. That is also the same member who just rose in this House, since it is pretty easy to convince him to do just about anything. He just rose in this House to refute the evidence. The same Conservatives who convinced him to drive around in a truck also convinced him to rise in this House to read a speech full of falsehoods.

When he was talking about the intent to boost community vitality and ensure good management of public funds, he must have forgotten institutions like the Marine Biotechnology Research Centre in Rimouski, which I have visited on several occasions. It was one of the institutions targeted by the great Conservative policy-makers, the reformers who tell members like the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière what to tell us here in the House, what tangled web to weave.

The Marine Biotechnology Research Centre in Rimouski is a centre of excellence. They recruited some 30 Ph.D.s and post-doctoral students from the regions, people trained at Scripps and MIT and the best universities in Canada and the United States. The only way to bring them back to the region is with a research institution like that.

However, according to Conservative ideology, there is no room for non-profit organizations in the economy. That is what the Conservatives from Quebec are saying. They are unable to take a stand for home-grown Quebec institutions or for supporting local economies to attract quality, intelligence and expertise to the regions of Quebec. They would rather dismantle the Quebec model. But they are not content to destroy it by cutting off funding. They want to destroy it by standing up in the House and justifying what can never be justified.

The member had the nerve to say that it was a courageous, necessary decision. Since when does it take courage to cut funding from economic development institutions that were created to help the regions of Quebec? Since when is it necessary to withdraw public funds from institutions that create employment and build the knowledge base? There may be just one way to reach the Conservatives, so let us remember that the only way to create wealth—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry but I have to interrupt the member for Outremont since there is a problem with the simultaneous translation for English-speaking members.

It is working now.

The member for Outremont.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Do I have 10 more minutes? May I resume? Could the clock be reset to zero? There is so much to say about the extreme right ideologists that we call the Conservatives. They systematically attack the institutions put in place by Quebec. They laugh nervously when presented with evidence of their negligence because they are unable to stand up, to look at the Reformists making cuts in the economic institutions put in place by Quebec and to tell those people that it is the wrong way to go.

I started by asking the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière if he sometimes has moments of lucidity, when he realizes what is going on. Do you know what? I prefer that he continues the same way, not realizing what he is doing. This is a bit like another member from Quebec City, who used to be the minister in charge of culture and who had the brilliant idea, just prior to the last campaign, to slash the programs supporting culture.

It had the desired effect. At least the Conservatives were prevented from getting their majority. That is a great achievement for Canada as a whole. We have succeeded in preventing those extreme right ideologists from getting the majority. I do not even want to think about what kind of country we would have right now if we had let them get that majority.

That is the kind of approach extreme right wing ideologues, reform ideologues, go for. It is one thing for them to decide to put an end to the involvement of the not-for-profit sector in the economy, in their regions, that is alright. But it is another for the members for Quebec, Lévis, Chutes-de-la-Chaudière or Beauce to rise in this House and deny the reality. The former minister responsible made cuts. Thankfully, the new one is putting money back. The fact remains that these members are trying to deny the reality. That is the kind of mad idea they acted on during the last election campaign, when they sat behind the wheel of their truck with the brilliant and oh so talented Michael Fortier.

Whatever became of Michael Fortier? Let us not forget that the same Michael Fortier lost to now senator Leo Housakos when he ran under the Reform Party banner in my riding of Laval. We can see what the Conservatives are all about.

This is a very timely motion the Bloc Québécois has put forward. I will read it so that everyone watching understands what it deals with, assess it and compare it to the nonsense coming from the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should reconsider its decision to eliminate the funding channelled through the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec [which was unquestionably eliminated, whether the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière likes it or not] to non-profit bodies active in the economic development sector, and reinstate their funding.

If the Conservatives took the slightest pride in Quebec's economic performance over the past 40 years, in what was accomplished in Quebec, they would not assist the Reformers in dismantling and demolishing it. They would not demonize it, as the member just did in his pathetic and shameful remarks to this House.

We, however, will stand up for Quebec and its institutions and vote with the Bloc and Liberal members to reinstate the funding which was undeniably cut by the Conservatives and their extreme right wing friends.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate is quite animated, thanks to my colleague. Together with my colleague from Laval, I would like to thank him for his support. As my colleague from Sherbrooke says, I will continue along the same lines.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said something that made my hair stand on end. He said in his speech that the Conservative government had cut funding for non-profit organizations in the interests of sound management of public funds. Does that mean that helping non-profit economic organizations that develop the regions is not sound management of public funds? Does that mean that the organizations in question were mismanaging and wasting the funding they received from the government? It is completely ridiculous to say that the government wants to exercise sound management by cutting funding for regional development and organizations involved in regional development.

The other thing I do not get about the Conservative government's attitude is the fact that it completely fails to understand the development model that Quebec has put in place over the past 40 years. It is important to understand that institutions in Quebec have changed a great deal. If we look at a map, we can see that Quebec created regional county municipalities, development plans and a set of tools to allow it to manage public funds more effectively and serve communities better.

The same is true of health care services. Quebec created local community service centres where people can access health care services. It established regional boards because it knew that centralizing services did not give good results. These services were therefore decentralized in the regions, and Quebec created institutions that manage each region. It created similar models of economic development.

Development committees were created for each regional county municipality and regions formed conferences of elected officers. Each regional county municipality in Quebec has a development plan that corresponds to its needs, abilities and the community as a whole, as well as its unique environment. For instance, we would not see an area in the middle of Montreal setting a goal to develop agriculture. I refer to agriculture because my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska is here. He is our agriculture critic and is doing an excellent job.

Each regional county municipality has its own model, a development objective. That is included in all administrative regions of Quebec, and each one has its own objectives. These are the objectives defended by not-for-profit organizations. We have heard the example of Technopole maritime du Québec based in Rimouski. All the stakeholders involved tried to identify a niche that could have worked for Rimouski, one that could have been the focus and could have been developed more than other sectors. That was the decision made by the stakeholders, the city of Rimouski, the Université du Québec à Rimouski and the Quebec government, which for years has been supporting marine development at the Université du Québec.

The Conservatives just crushed that decision by eliminating the programs offered to not-for-profit economic organizations. Consider, for example, my riding of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

In the Matapédia valley, at this time, we have set up a forestry research centre. This was a tool we created with the support of Canada Economic Development. There is now no chance at all that it will get that support again, with the criteria that have been established, and with the budget cuts. We focused as our niche market on the forest, at the primary level, but also at the secondary and even tertiary stages of processing. We have been trying to develop that sector for years. With the crisis in the softwood lumber sector, it is even more important to invest in research and development so that we can manage to revive the economy of the Matapédia valley. What happened in 2007 was that the Conservative government said that this would not work out, to forget the non-profit organizations. According to it, these were people who did not manage public funds properly. That is what we have been told. It makes no sense. It is a snub to the entire Quebec model, which was starting to fall in line with the best international models of regional development. Think of Finland, Norway, the Nordic countries with more or less similar models that allow each region to have niche markets and to be able to develop them without competition from other regions. What this does for the government of Quebec and what it ought to do for the federal government is to support development of this type. It avoids any foul ups, muddles and duplication, which is really important.

What the Bloc Québécois wants is for the federal government, if it refuses to pull out of regional development completely—and incidentally, this is a prerogative of the provincial governments, and particularly the Government of Quebec under the Constitution—to try to coordinate its programs with those of the Government of Quebec, and reach agreements with the provincial governments. We speak of the Government of Quebec because that is where we are from, but the same thing could be done in New Brunswick. The federal government can reach an agreement with it on regional development. Or with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, or the other provinces, particularly Ontario. This is a very fine example at present. The federal government, if it refuses to pull out of this area completely, and it is a provincial jurisdiction, must reach agreement first with the Government of Quebec and agree to accept the models of Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick, and to go in the same direction.

What the Conservative government has done is to go right back to the quagmire that existed previously. It is setting priorities that are not really the priorities of each region and even less so those of Quebec. It says that it wants to make investments but the problem when it does so is that the investments do not correspond to the needs or wishes of the area. So what will they develop? A great number of businesses that are not a good fit for the community and that will lead to regions competing against one another for the fun of it? That does not make sense.

If we develop a marine niche market in Rimouski, we will not develop another in Trois-Rivières. That needs to be understood and yet the Conservative government has not understood. Furthermore, this government cut almost 50% of funding for regional development. When the former minister told us that he had to cut something, that he had to make cuts to non-profits, what he did not tell us is that he had completely failed to defend the budget for regional development that we had before.

In closing, I would like to move an amendment to the motion presented by my colleague from Sherbrooke. The amendment reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by replacing the words “and reinstate their funding” with the words “reinstate full funding and eligibility criteria, and continue such funding beyond March 31, 2011”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendment may be proposed to a private members' motion or to the motion for second reading of a private members' bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his consent. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Sherbrooke if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to consent to the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The amendment is in order.

Resuming debate on the amendment.

The hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to take part in this debate to talk about our government's concrete achievements and Economic Development Canada's concrete achievements under the aegis of two excellent ministers, the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma and, of course, the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean.

I would like to share part of a quote: “Economic Development Canada's initiative is timely because it comes at a time of global economic slowdown and increased international competition,” said the president and CEO of Montréal International, André Gamache on March 18, 2009. “We applaud the Roberval minister's openness and his awareness of the economic challenges facing greater Montreal”. And there is more. This is a key Montreal organization applauding the Conservative government's initiatives.

I have another quote here from the mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, who was very pleased with the Government of Canada's decision to develop a new funding policy for non-profit economic organizations. Mayor Labeaume said that it was important to get all the ducks in a row. We are managing taxpayers' money. We are here to manage the biggest portfolio in Canada, and we have to make careful choices. By working together, these two ministers have paved the way for effective economic development.

I am sure everyone will agree that it is surprising to hear the Bloc Québécois ask for more money from the federal government for economic development when, not so very long ago, it stated quite clearly that the federal government should not get involved in regional development strategies for Quebec because it was getting in the way of integrated local development. The Bloc Québécois even said that it was a waste of time and money.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Unfortunately, the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. However, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse will have eight minutes next time the House considers this bill.

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

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on my question for the Minister of Indian Affairs concerning the failure of the government to address Métis needs in its budget and economic plan.

As I noted at the time, the word Métis does not appear in the budget speech. It does not seem to appear in any budget news release or backgrounder. It is as if the Métis have been written out or written off by the Conservative government.

While I and some others on this side welcome some of the budget measures aimed at improving social and economic conditions in first nations and Inuit communities, the same social and economic challenges face Métis communities in Canada.

I think of the Inuit/Métis communities in Labrador. There were no specific training programs or adjustment programs. There was no economic development or infrastructure investment. There were no dollars for Métis education or health improvement. There were no additional dollars for housing.

The omission of the Métis peoples from the budget plan is unfortunate, and I hope it does not reflect any underlying attitudes on the part of the Conservative government.

I was not alone in noticing the omission. The Métis National Council issued a strong statement expressing its disappointment in the budget and its desire to see Métis economic stimulus addressed in some way, shape or form.

It was disappointing that the government failed to take into account the Métis National Council's prebudget submission or the views of other Métis representative organizations and leaders.

The current economic downturn is hurting every sector of the economy and every region. However, as in all economic crises, it is too often the economically disadvantaged who suffer the greatest impact.

Many Métis, and indeed other aboriginal communities, including Inuit and first nations, had made economic progress in recent years. I think for example of many natural resources projects which had begun to make some strides in employing aboriginal people and involving them in training, supply and other opportunities. Many of these communities are now finding themselves taking an economic hit from shutdowns and layoffs.

The government should have taken the situation of Métis communities more fully into account in drawing up its budget plan and its plan for economic stimulus. Unfortunately, this latest economic crisis is on top of the economic challenges which have faced Métis communities for far too long.

Unfortunately, the economic situation in Canada does not seem to be turning around yet. We saw today the latest move by the Bank of Canada, which has revised its economic forecast yet again, foreseeing a longer recession than previously predicted. A longer or deeper recession will only worsen the economic impacts on economically vulnerable communities.

It will make it even more important that government takes measures to stimulate the economy for all Canadians, in all regions and from all parts of our society. That includes the Métis, who need to be included more fully in the economic plans of government and in the economic life of our country.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the question from the hon. member for Labrador. I am quite surprised by this question. Our government is deeply engaged in a relationship with the Métis, and we are committed to concrete actions.

Last year our government signed the historic Métis nation protocol, an important partnership agreement with the Métis National Council to improve the lives of Métis. Already we have met with them to identify a number of priority areas important to the Métis nation, including war veteran issues, Métis former students of the residential school system and economic development.

Clearly our government is committed to taking steps to ensure that Métis fully share in economic opportunities offered throughout Canada. In fact, we believe that increasing aboriginal participation in the economy is the most effective way to improve persistent socio-economic conditions faced by aboriginal people in Canada, and there are some real success stories out there.

In budget 2009 we have taken some very important steps to help aboriginal people with workforce training opportunities by investing an additional $100 million over three years in the aboriginal skills and employment partnership initiative. This is expected to support the creation of 6,000 jobs for aboriginal Canadians. I happen to have personal experience with that program, and I know it is achieving results. We are committed to ensuring that Métis have full access to this program.

In addition, our government is investing $75 million in a two-year aboriginal skills and training strategic investment fund. In the coming months we will introduce a new federal framework that will align all federal actions in support of aboriginal economic development, including recent and new investments to enhance access to capital. The Métis will play a significant role in this framework.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite intently to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary and again I think he evaded the question.

I would like to ask once again very quickly what Métis specific programs there were. What investments were there for Métis specific investments in things like housing, infrastructure, water and sewer? These communities need it, just like first nations and Inuit communities need these investments.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are working through the Métis protocol on issues that are important to the Métis, including access to the budget 2009 initiatives.

Our government is proud to be making notable progress with the Métis National Council. We have been working very hard on a government-to-government basis from economic development to housing to educational outcomes. We remain committed to working in partnership to improve the quality of life for Métis people. The government is making notable progress.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in March, I asked a question in this House, and I have to say that I did not get a very satisfactory answer.

I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage to justify the cuts to arts and culture programs. The Minister of Canadian Heritage did not make these documents public, claiming that they were secret cabinet deliberations.

Either these documents and the analysis do not exist and the cuts were made for ideological reasons, or the government is not happy with the findings and does not want to show them to us. Either way, is its refusal to make these documents public not proof that these cuts were unjustified?

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has repeatedly said that these programs were not cost-effective, but he has never been able to prove it. He has never been able to show us even one sentence in a study to prove it. But when we go to the website of the Department of Canadian Heritage, we can find studies, analyses and even surveys about the Trade Routes program. There are even 200 pages of survey results from December 2007, 14 or 15 months ago, that speak glowingly of the results of the Trade Routes program, which was cut.

The minister inevitably says that the Conservatives are good, that they have given a lot of money to artists and that the Bloc Québécois has voted against it. But the Bloc Québécois has not always voted against the government. On May 10, 2006, the Bloc voted in favour of the Conservative budget, because it included a lot of money for Quebec. On March 27, 2007, the Bloc Québécois also voted for the Conservative budget, because it gave more money to artists through the Canada Council. It was not enough for this government to brag about, but there was more money for the Canada Council and it was a step in the right direction. We asked for $150 million more and the government gave $30 million.

But that is not enough. I know that the parliamentary secretary will rise soon to say that they have never given so much money. However, this “so much” only represents a few thousand dollars more.

It is true. We twice voted for this Conservative government's budgets because they put more money in the right places. This time the cuts are vicious and unwarranted. The minister appeared before our committee and repeated the same old story that he had given more money but he never explained the reason for the cuts or why the programs are ineffective.

The deputy minister also appeared before the committee. She, too, was asked to produce her studies but was unable to do so. She said the studies were secret because they came from cabinet. However, the very week that I asked my question, on February 10, the government unveiled, piece by piece, like a stripper, the pieces of the budget it was going to present.

The reason he gave is a vile and false excuse and I would like the minister to produce the studies that prove these programs to be supposedly ineffective.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Department of Canadian Heritage was among 17 departments and agencies that participated in a strategic review of all program spending. During the strategic review, the department reviewed the bottom 3.4% of program spending within the context of the $2.31 billion spent by the Canadian Heritage portfolio, not the full 5% as requested.

The strategic review process was a budgetary exercise completely covered by the concept of cabinet confidence. Every document, opinion and any advice provided to the government cannot be revealed. Laws exist that maintain the security of these documents.

As I have said before, our government supports the overall objectives of Trade Routes but did not agree with the overall results of the program. Five million dollars in administrative costs cannot justify $2 million in direct benefits. This is an opinion that many in the arts community share, including Alain Paré, president and CEO of CINARS.

The member opposite seems to forget that we are contributing some $22 million in support of international touring and export through the Canada Council, Telefilm, the National Film Board, FACTOR, Music Action and the Association for the Export of Canadian Books. There is an awful lot of support that this government is conducting.

We know in budget 2009, of course, that the government announced an additional investment of more than half a billion dollars over the next two years for arts, culture and heritage, including $276 million in new funding, including $60 million in new funding for cultural infrastructure and $20 million in new funding to train the next generation of Canada's most promising artists, while spending $100 million over two years for marquee festivals and events that draw tourism and related spinoffs right here in Canada. It is a great program. This builds on the $30 million in permanent appropriation of funds to the Canada Council for the Arts, bringing its budget to at least $180 million a year and $181 million this year.

I would like to note for the member opposite that this past fall the Prime Minister announced that our government would be reinvesting $25 million over five years in additional support to the international francophone television network TV5. This investment increases our contribution to $13 million a year, which should greatly help promote Canadian content to the some 180 million households around the globe that watch TV5.

In closing, I want to reiterate that this government believes in efficiency and ensuring that that maximum support possible goes to creators and to sharing their work with audiences. We want to get value for money. We are absolutely supporting arts and culture, as we are so many facets for which this government is responsible, but we are also ensuring that every taxpayer dollar is respected.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard is not any more satisfactory. It is really the minister's story told another way but the words are not all that different. When talking about the strategic reviews of these programs he states that the information is confidential because it originates from cabinet. However, that does not mean that the information cannot be disclosed; it can if the minister wishes it to be. We must conclude that the minister does not wish to disclose this information. That is what we must conclude.

In the story that he has told over and over again, only one sentence speaks remotely to my question and that is when he talks about the Trade Routes program. This program's budget totalled $7 million: $5 million to send agents, who were like public servants, around the world and $2 million that was actually subsidies for organizations. The latter want the $2 million, but not the $5 million.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we went through a number of hearings at committee. Perhaps, for the member's benefit, she should know that it was not the case that Trade Routes sent people throughout the world. In fact, Trade Routes had locations in five cities. They just happened to be the most expensive five cities to set up agencies like this. It was spending $5 million in administration but delivering only $2 million in benefit, clearly not a program that has the type of efficiency that I believe Canadians expect when we are spending their hard-earned dollars, their taxpayer dollars that they are sending here to Ottawa.

What we are determined to do is provide unprecedented support to arts and culture, which is what we are doing, but we are also ensuring that each and every dollar gets results for Canadians.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on January 27, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development a question about a problem in Lebel-sur-Quévillon concerning the closure of the paper mill and sawmill, which put 425 employees out of work. For that town, it was the equivalent of 550,000 jobs in Montreal. On that day—budget day, as you may recall—the minister replied, “I invite the member to wait for this afternoon's budget and to support us so that we can rebuild the economy together.”

However, further to the request I made to the minister, after reading the budget several times, I have not found anything that would answer the question I asked. I would remind the House of a few facts. The Employment Insurance Act used to be called the Unemployment Insurance Act. Before that, the federal government had gathered together legislation that existed in all the provinces, but did not exist at the federal level. In the provinces, including Quebec, legislation was passed in the 1920s to help those most in need, and in 1939-40 it was temporarily taken up by the federal government, which allocated funds in order provide a decent income for the time.

As soon as the economy recovered and the program was put in place, the government ensured that it would self-sustain itself and stopped funding it, while keeping control of operations and grabbing surpluses to use them towards the federal deficit. It is in that context that, in 1996, the Minister of Finance released the name, the thrust and the goals of that program. Indeed, at the time, the minister changed the title of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which referred to the situation for which this legislation had been passed—that is to protect the workers and local economies affected. Until 1996, the program had always been indexed to the cost of living, or close to it.

So, ironically, the minister renamed it the “employment insurance” program, as if the income provided by our employment was not in itself an insurance provided by our work, and as if we needed other compensation in addition to the income provided by our work.

Worse still, the minister reduced insurable amounts from $47,000 to $39,000, in addition to reducing from 60% down to 55% the percentage used to calculate the amount of the benefits to be paid. That percentage was also reduced each time a claimant would rely on these benefits, down to a threshold of 50%. This means that benefits which, in most cases, amounted to $28,000 in 1994-95, went down to $19,500 in January 1996, and, in many cases, to much less than that. In his desire to grab money as quickly as possible, this minister, who went on to become the Prime Minister, had made his legislation, which was passed on April 30, 1996, retroactive to January 1.

In response to the question that I put to her on March 10, when I came back, the minister said that there were very great challenges in these tough times for a great number of people, and that the government had a framework and intended to stick with it.

We are now going through another crisis, and it is important to give back access to employment insurance to those who need it. People serving two or three years in jail can maintain their right to employment insurance, but that is not the case for workers, and today they need that program.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the employment insurance program has been expanded. A number of things have been done to enhance the program.

The EI program's basic insurance principle stipulates that the premiums paid and benefits disbursed must be reasonably close in terms of both timing and value. That is why the EI program's qualifying period is clearly established as the 52 weeks preceding an application for benefits. It is a core principle that would need to be enhanced or dealt with in any program.

We analyzed the labour market and consulted widely with Canadians before developing our economic action plan. The result is a framework that responds to the current economic situation by assisting workers financially now and helping them to prepare for jobs as the economy improves.

The changes we have made to the EI program are an essential component of our economic action plan. There are a number of enhancements to the program. They include: providing nationally the benefits of the previous five-week pilot project and increasing the maximum duration of benefits available under the EI program by five weeks, raising it from 45 weeks to 50 weeks; allowing earlier access to EI regular income benefits for eligible individuals purchasing their own training using all or part of their severance package; a pilot project that will provide extended EI income support to long-tenured workers while they are on claim; temporarily increasing the funding to the provinces and territories for training programs and services, an additional $1 billion to top up the current funding of $1.95 billion; and a two-year strategic training and transition fund to create opportunities for employment, enable community self-reliance and provide flexible support to individual workers for skills upgrading and training.

Clearly, these measures and others, such as the targeted initiative for older workers, show that this government continues to take action to adjust the employment insurance program to meet the needs of today's workers and prepare them for the jobs of tomorrow.

That being said, I wish to assure the hon. member that we will continue to monitor the current EI system to ensure that the program is working and responding effectively to ever-changing economic circumstances. Built within the employment insurance program is the provision that if unemployment in a region rises, benefits are longer and the time to qualify is shorter. That part is flexible. We are making sure that the needs of those who are most vulnerable are met.