Debates of April 23rd, 2009

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I posed a question for the Minister of Finance some weeks ago, on February 10, he gave me what I felt was an unsatisfactory answer. Today I hope I will get a more detailed explanation of what the Conservatives are doing to address our economic crisis and to answer my question.

We have a very serious economic situation and taxpayers expect us to spend their money wisely because it is their money. We need to be very judicious with public funds at a time of economic crisis and a recession, but first we need a government that really understands the nature and the depth of the problem. So far, we have not have had that.

We have a government that started out by saying that Canada would avoid a recession when it was already clear that we were in a recession. Then it acknowledged that it was a recession but just a technical recession, not a real one. Then it was a synchronized global recession, as though that were an explanation for its past inability to understand the fiscal and financial realities that were obvious to other parties. After that, it was a mild recession and now it is a serious recession. I have a lot of concern that we have a government that is wrestling to figure out what is going on rather than how it can help.

I also want to comment on the idea of this being a mild recession. It is insulting to the 300,000 Canadians who have lost their jobs since January 1 and to the almost 15% of young people who are unemployed.

The finance minister said that his analysis that this was a mild recession related to the fact that most people came from other places, including the United Kingdom, that most came on boats, that many came with nothing and that many died as a result of contracting diseases while travelling to Canada. He was painting a picture of everything but covered wagons and horses and buggies, as though that had to do with the human distress that people are experiencing, people whose life-savings are being drained away, people who built small businesses and are now e bankrupt with the assets they were aiming to retire on gone.

The government's response has been completely inadequate. Where is the $1 billion for the mountain pine beetle that was promised? Why did it cut research at a time when our neighbour to the south is increasing it and we need it, not just for the jobs of today but the economy of tomorrow? Why knee-cap green power by killing the wind power incentive at a time when we need to position ourselves as leaders in the new green economy? Why not provide an employment insurance safety net that will actually address the needs of people who have paid into it for many years?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver Quadra for giving me this opportunity to have a short discussion at least on the Liberal economic policy as we know it. It is important that all Canadians fully understand what it is that the Liberals would do had they been given an opportunity to do so.

Let us go back just a few short months ago when the Liberals were crying out for more money, billions of dollars, to be infused into the Canadian economy. So much so that at the time they tried to form an unholy coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois in an attempt to wrest control of government away from a duly elected, democratically elected government, this Conservative government. Luckily, sanity prevailed, due in large part, I believe, to the visceral outrage of Canadians from coast to coast to coast against the concept of such a coalition.

Once things calmed down, our government brought down a budget on January 27 recognizing the worldwide global deterioration of the economy. We brought in a stimulus package with that budget which on a percentage basis to the GDP was probably larger than any other country in the industrialized world.

What was the reaction of the Liberal Party at that time? The Liberals said it was not enough. They said we must do more and pump more money into the economy.

As a result of the stimulus package, we are going to be experiencing a short-term deficit. But the Liberal solution was to make the deficit larger because the Liberals were criticizing us for not going far enough.

Now fast forward to today. What is the position of the Liberal Party? The Liberals actually have the audacity to criticize our government for having a deficit, when in fact they would have had a much larger deficit. They criticize us for creating the deficit, when in fact they were advocating a deficit.

What is the reaction of the Liberal leader? What is the position of the Liberal leader in dealing with the deficit? He said, and these are his words not mine, “We must raise taxes”. Yes, that is right, incredible as it sounds, the Liberal leader is saying that we must raise taxes to pay off the deficit.

This should not surprise anyone who has followed the career of the Liberal leader because he has a history of favouring higher taxes. Only a few short years ago he characterized himself as being a “tax and spend Liberal”, his words not mine.

Also, he has advocated, as has the rest of his party, that they bring forward a carbon tax. That was the previous Liberal leader's pet project in the last election. He was the father of the doomed federal carbon tax that the Liberals were projecting.

As well, the Liberal leader and the rest of his party criticized us for lowering the GST from 7% to 5%. The Liberal leader has constantly advocated raising taxes, and now he must answer the basic questions that all Canadians have: What taxes would he raise? How much would he raise taxes? Who would pay for these taxes?

The Liberal leader and the Liberal Party are absolutely giddy in anticipation these days of the possibility of an election. I can guarantee one thing: when the election does come, there will be a very basic and fundamental question that all Canadians will be asking, which party and which leader best protects the Canadian taxpayer? Will it be the Conservative Party led by Prime Minister Harper, who has obviously always lowered taxes, or the Liberal Party and the Liberal leader who advocate raising taxes?

That is the debate I want to have.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I know the hon. parliamentary secretary forgot, but it is inappropriate to use proper names.

The hon. member for Vancouver--Quadra.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to have a debate about who protects the taxpayer because it is obvious. It was the Liberal Party of Canada that cleaned up a record deficit left by the Conservative government once before. It was the Liberal Party that left the Conservatives with an enormous surplus which they squandered when times were good so now they do not have the resources to deal with the problems that we have today. The Liberal Party will be cleaning up the Conservative Party's deficit once again. That is who protects the taxpayer.

The member opposite still does not understand our parliamentary system. When a prime minister of a minority government loses the confidence of the members of Parliament, they are entitled to vote accordingly. Instead, we had the embarrassing spectacle of a Canadian prime minister crawling to the public television networks begging for his very job.

Distortion and deception--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra for reminding Canadians of the ill-fated coalition that the Liberals attempted to create, a coalition that was so unholy in its alliance that Canadians from coast to coast to coast in unwavering numbers said no, they do not want this.

Beyond all of that and that will be, of course, a source of controversy and discussion for quite some time, I merely state that the Liberal leader must answer three basic questions to the Canadian taxpayer. We know he wants to raise taxes. When will he raise them? What taxes will he raise? How much will he raise them? Finally, the final question, who will have to pay for these taxes? Those are the questions the Liberal leader ultimately will have to answer and I am looking forward to those answers.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question that I raised in the House in March about the process that was being used around the so-called consultation for water on first nations reserves. Now that the results are in, in terms of how effective that consultation was, the Femmes Autochtones du Québec has been quite vocal in its criticism and has commented on this so-called engagement process.

It is important to note here that engagement sessions were only initiated at the end of February and terminated in early April with a government deadline of mid-April for bands to submit an impact study. This kind of activity undertaken by INAC fails to adequately meet the standards and duty to consult indigenous peoples in accordance with Supreme Court judgements. Indeed, during these sessions, the government had already defined legislation as the only option for bands to choose.

We also have the Safe Drinking Water Foundation's advanced aboriginal water treatment team being highly critical of this process. It has indicated a number of problems, including the fact that invitations were problematic because first nations communities did not receive adequate notice to attend and the timing of the sessions overlapped with critical annual budgeting events which prevented many leaders from attending.

The facilitators provided misleading or incomplete information to participants and government voices tended to dominate their conversations advocating for a particular goal. Having water quality on reserves be subject to variations of less strict provincial guidelines instead of the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality, thereby abdicating its fiduciary responsibility and liability for first nations drinking water quality.

Later in its report, it talked about the fact that the SDWF's AAWTT feels that the INAC's engagement sessions and attempts to deal with first nations drinking water quality were utterly inadequate, did not offer opportunity for meaningful consultation, diminished first nations' treaty rights and attempted to absolve INAC of its fiduciary responsibility. The SDWF's position in this respect was further explained and it went on to outline a number of problems with the process.

It said participation expectations were not met and the fact that those who were able to attend the engagement sessions expected that they would contribute to the development of the federal action plan on safe drinking water and that they would receive accurate and complete information in order to make well-founded decisions.

It went on to talk about the fact that in these conversations, at times there were more bureaucrats in the room than there were first nations. In some cases the bands received the information package at noon the day before and had to drive three hours in order to even get to a session. As was already pointed out, there were conflicting demands, the timeframe was far too short, and it just generally ignored all the principles of what should be deemed consultation.

I wonder what it was that the minister was trying to avoid by short-circuiting a consultation process that could have had some meaningful impact on the quality of drinking water in first nations communities.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this question by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. There was indeed a fruitful and effective consultation process.

My colleague spoke of water quality. Our government is taking action to ensure residents of first nation communities have access to the same quality of drinking water as other Canadians.

Quite frankly, I was surprised at these comments because we have achieved unprecedented progress in collaboration with first nations across the country. For example, in 2006 there were 193 high risk first nation water systems. Today this number has been reduced by two-thirds to 48 systems.

Furthermore, 21 communities were identified as priorities which meant that the community had both a high risk system and a drinking water advisory. Today only four communities are on that list.

What is more, decisive action is being taken on the new measures identified under the 2008 first nations water and waste water action plan. This includes moving forward with the consultation process for water legislation, including the recent completion of engagement sessions in March on the development of a legislative framework proceeding with a national assessment of water and waste water systems that provide services to first nation communities and developing or improving water and waste water protocols to be issued shortly.

Clearly, our government is getting the job done. Nothing demonstrates this more than budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan. With the economic action plan, we provide $1.4 billion over two years for specific initiatives aimed at improving the well-being and prosperity of aboriginal people in Canada. These new investments include $165 million to accelerate water and waste water infrastructure projects.

Our government recognizes that every Canadian deserves access to clean and healthy drinking water. These recent investments demonstrate clear action toward this goal and we will continue with this endeavour.

It is important to note that this member voted against this additional funding for aboriginal people. She voted against their best interests. I would invite my colleague, if she really wants to stand up for aboriginal people and vote for aboriginal people, to vote for these important types of initiatives.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the members in the community and others that represent them that have indicated that this consultation process was a mere sham. Again, coming back to the Quebec Native Women's Association, it talks about the fact that there was simply not the time nor the expanse that would allow for that meaningful kind of input.

When the member talks about the fact that many communities have been taken off the boil water advisory, we still have serious water quality problems across the country. Attawapiskat First Nation has been on a boil water advisory since 1989. What the member fails to talk about is the fact that many communities simply are not hooked up to a water system, so they are not counted in that number. There was a child who just died on the Garden Hill Reserve from meningitis and his family had no running water in the facility.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on the fact that it is first nations themselves that say this consultation--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the results that I just spoke of the last time I rose truly do speak for themselves.

Clearly, our government has made significant progress on aboriginal issues including safe drinking water over the past three years, working with willing partners to achieve tangible results. We have demonstrated new practical approaches to working with aboriginal governments, organizations, provinces and territories, and the private sector to address clear priorities in an effective and targeted manner.

In aboriginal communities throughout Canada this is paying off and producing results. With budget 2009 our government continues this commitment with a $1.4 billion priority initiative aimed at improving the well-being and prosperity of aboriginal people in Canada.

As I mentioned, this member and her party voted against that measure. I do not know how she can stand in the House and pretend to stand for aboriginal people when she is voting against additional funding like $1.4 billion. It is very regrettable.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here in the House today because, on March 5, 2009, I asked the President of the Treasury Board a question, but I did not receive a satisfactory answer.

I therefore rise again here this evening, hoping that I will get a somewhat more satisfactory answer concerning pay equity. Some 30 years ago, the federal government passed a law that made it illegal to discriminate against women in the workplace. Yet we are far from achieving pay equity for women. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that the wage gap between men and women is actually increasing. Women should always be able to count on government intervention to ensure that their fundamental right to pay equity is finally respected.

Now more than ever, the federal government must pass proactive pay equity legislation. I was largely inspired by a Public Service Alliance of Canada document, that is, a document from our employees who know very well what this is all about, since they, themselves, do not have pay equity at this time.

A task force published a report and the adoption of proactive federal pay equity legislation was a priority demand of the 2000 World March of Women in Canada. As a result of this mobilization, the federal justice minister appointed the Pay Equity Task Force in 2001 to examine the shortcomings of the system and propose solutions.

The task force spent three years doing extensive research on the issue and consulting with unions, women's groups, and human rights groups throughout the country. The group organized round tables with unions and employers to understand the problems and explore proposed solutions, particularly in Ontario and Quebec.

In May 2004, the task force published its report, Pay Equity: A New Approach to a Fundamental Right, which contained several recommendations. The main recommendation was that the government put in place proactive pay equity legislation. We hoped that the government would move forward with this proactive legislation. We waited but realized that the Prime Minister did not support pay equity.

In 1998, when he was the head of the National Citizens Coalition, he declared, “For taxpayers, pay equity is a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender. Both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service. That is why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law.”

Thus, it is not surprising that the Conservative Party is doing an about-face on pay equity and today wants us to pass so-called legislation requiring these people to attempt to obtain a small degree of pay equity through collective bargaining. That is not how you achieve pay equity. Pay equity is a right that should be guaranteed.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

There is no about-face here, and I hope that I will provide clarity on this issue.

The Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act was tabled as part of the government's Budget Implementation Act, 2009 on February 6 and it received royal assent on March 12. I would like to take the opportunity to thank all the members who supported the legislation.

This act replaces an adversarial complaints-based system with a collaborative one as part of the collective bargaining process.

Our government respects the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. That is why we have acted to ensure a more modern and collaborative approach to equitable compensation in the federal public service. Our approach brings much needed reform to our complaint-based pay equity regime, which has proved to be a lengthy, costly and adversarial process, a process that does not serve employees or employers well.

Our government is proud to be leading the way when it comes to recruitment and compensation of employees.

We should be especially proud of the progress toward gender balance in the public services, particularly within the senior ranks. It is worth noting that back in 1983 fewer than 5% of women were in senior management. Today, women are approaching half of the senior and executive ranks of the federal public service. They are not only taking the top jobs, but their representation in many groups has also increased dramatically over the years.

Today's public service provides women and men with equal access to all positions and identical wages within the same groups and levels. I am proud of the example we are setting for both private and public sector organizations around the world.

Given this situation and given the need to ensure the strides women have made in the federal public sector continue to be maintained, we have put in place a more modern approach to pay equity from public service employees. We need to put an end to the long and drawn out court cases of the past.

Before this act, public service employers and unions were not required to take pay equity issues into account during wage setting. The issues were raised only when complaints were made. Many Canadians would be surprised to know that the last court case on pay equity concluded in 1999, at a cost of millions of dollars to taxpayers, a settlement that took over 15 years to achieve.

Public service employees deserve better. Taxpayers deserve better. This has clearly been a case of justice delayed being justice denied. That is no longer acceptable.

The new system will address any unfairness in women's wages and deal with it straight up, instead of allowing a settlement to drag on in the courts. It will make employers and bargaining agents jointly accountable for setting fair wages. It will ensure these decisions are made at the time of collective bargaining for unionized employees. It will impose a rigorous process to ensure employers address pay equity in a timely way for non-unionized employees.

The legislation ensures that such prolonged court cases become a thing of the past. This is about doing the right thing, finally, for Canadian women. Our government makes no apologies for taking long overdue steps to protect the rights of women to fair and equitable pay.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's statements are nothing more than science fiction. If the government had been that interested in listening to employees, women's groups, and the people affected by the pay equity problem, we would clearly see that these people have not been heard. Unfortunately, once again, they are conducting bogus consultations. They pretend they were acting in people's best interests, but it was in the interests of the government. They do not care about people's best interests.

The people involved are all against this pay equity legislation and were very sorry to see it hidden within the budget. That prevented us from debating it properly and publicly, and from having an informed debate. Now, any debate on it was drowned out by the budget debate and we were not able to discuss it, and the government was in a hurry to see it passed by the Liberals, who had no choice but to accept it, in order to avoid an election. That is the reality.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows the current system is broken. It does not work for women and it does not work for the government. When it takes 15 to 20 years to settle disputes, it does not take much to see that it is a lengthy, costly and adversarial process, which does not serve anyone well.

We want to correct this problem by improving upon the existing models of Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba and, I might add, along the lines of what an independent task force, appointed by the previous Liberal government, recommended.

I do not understand why my hon. colleague cannot see how a proactive system will be far better than a reactive one. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:49 p.m.)