Debates of May 14th, 2009

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario Act

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-309, in the name of my distinguished colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming.

My colleague, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, is the chair of our national caucus. He is a very powerful and consistent voice for regional development in northern Ontario. He is somebody who speaks often in our caucus and in numerous meetings I have attended about the importance of investing in the regions of the country, about the importance of understanding that the regional economy of the area he represents in northern Ontario is different from some of the challenges or some of the economies, for example, in southern Ontario, which is also suffering in this very difficult Conservative recession.

Our colleague, when he introduced the bill, made a very compelling case why FedNor should in fact have its separate legal status and a statute creating an agency of the Government of Canada and not simply a program buried at the Department of Industry.

I come from Atlantic Canada. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, as my colleague from northern Ontario noted, has a separate statute. It is created by an act of Parliament with a mandate. It is set up under federal law to operate as an agency of the Government of Canada. It is not subject to an administrative committee or a bureaucratic decision at some third level buried at the Department of Industry.

I do not know why economic development in northern Ontario would take a second-class position to the importance of investing in regional development in Atlantic Canada, in western Canada, with the economic diversification initiative, or in the Quebec regions with Développement economique Canada pour les régions du Québec.

As my colleague pointed out earlier, the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec operates at arm's length from the government.

I think it would be a good idea to have a minister in Parliament who can appear before parliamentary committees, a minister responsible for credits and for protecting the interests of northern Ontario.

We are left to ask ourselves why the Conservative government is going to oppose the bill. Why are the Conservatives going to resist putting regional development in northern Ontario on the same footing as it is in other regions of the country? Why did they create an agency for economic development in southern Ontario? As I said a minute ago, that region is suffering serious economic distress as a result of the global economic recession and the inability of the Conservative government to face head on the economic challenges facing every region of the country.

Is there an agenda in the Conservative government to abandon northern Ontario? Are the Conservatives leaving it as a program at the Department of Industry instead of a separate agency of the government created by statute? Did someone at some meeting on a Monday morning or a Friday afternoon at the Department of Industry on Queen Street here in Ottawa decide that another program in the department was short of money so they would get a bit from FedNor?

It is horribly unfair to leave the economic future of the communities represented by my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming and other members of the House from northern Ontario so vulnerable in the face of competing budget priorities and in the face of what I believe is a complete disinterest on the part of the Conservative government in regional development.

As I said a moment ago, I represent a riding in rural New Brunswick where regional development is essential not only for the economic future of the community, but also for municipalities to have access to an infrastructure program that meets the unique needs of smaller municipalities and some remote and regional communities.

One of the more compelling arguments for economic development that I have ever heard, and for the idea that the Government of Canada has to be involved in regional development, came from the late Harrison McCain. Mr. McCain was a great New Brunswick entrepreneur who began the McCain Foods global enterprise which operates in dozens of countries around the world.

McCain Foods began as an idea to process potatoes in a village called Florenceville, New Brunswick. In the 1970s, when the two McCain brothers, the late Harrison McCain and Wallace McCain, decided to open McCain Foods, they could not find a commercial lending institution that would give two entrepreneurs from rural New Brunswick the millions of dollars they needed to set up their first french fry production facility.

The department of regional industrial expansion existed at that time in the Trudeau government. That was the federal economic development agency which decided to partner with McCain Foods in rural New Brunswick. I have heard Harrison McCain tell the story himself about the interest of the Government of Canada in helping people in the small village of Florenceville. Florenceville probably has a population of less than a few thousand. It is an hour and a half drive from the city of Fredericton, along the Saint John River Valley in New Brunswick, known as the potato belt because it is a very fertile area for growing potatoes. If the Government of Canada had not stood by the McCain brothers in the 1970s, we would not have a globally competitive business called McCain Foods operating in almost every continent called.

When we think of what the importance of a small investment meant at that time to the future economic prosperity of a company as important, I would argue, to Canada and to our export picture as a food-producing country as McCain Foods, then we have not understood the importance of the federal role in regional development.

That brings me back to my colleague's bill, Bill C-309, which seeks simply to give FedNor the same status as the other economic development agencies. It does not seek, as some Conservative members would assert, to increase the budget or duplicate administrative costs, or set up a corporate service branch that does not exist now. As my colleague accurately described, these services currently exist within the program operated as FedNor. What does not exist is the legal status of an agency with a mandate from this Parliament to operate in the interests of the economic development of a region as important to our country as is northern Ontario.

Consider the difficulties in the forestry sector, for example. My colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming has spoken many times about the challenge the American subsidies around black liquor represent for the Canadian pulp and paper industry. It is a very critical time for this industry. Thousands of jobs have already been lost. Tens of thousands of jobs are threatened. The government needs to get engaged in the fight to support these industries, workers and communities.

If we do not have a separate agency like FedNor, which can understand the economic challenges of the forestry or mining sectors in the economy of northern Ontario, and we simply rely on the Department of Industry on Queen Street in Ottawa to be interested in the difficulties of operating a sawmill in a small remote community of northern Ontario where there is the challenge of building logging roads across a vast expanse of territory, then we have not understood the importance of building a truly national economy.

If the Conservative government were sincere about wanting every region of the country to prosper, it would stand up for FedNor. It would not bury it in some office at the Department of Industry in Ottawa. It would give it a legal status similar to ACOA, which is an agency that is so important to my region in Atlantic Canada, or to DEC, Développement économique Canada pour les régions du Québec. It would support Bill C-309, which I think is a great testimony to the commitment of my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming to northern Ontario.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to and discuss the implications of private member's Bill C-309.

The bill proposes, at a significant cost to the taxpayer, to create a new federal agency with its own deputy minister and with its own bureaucracy to administer economic development programs exclusively to northern Ontario. Bill C-309, in essence, aims to create an agency to do what FedNor, a program administered by Industry Canada, is already doing and doing quite well.

Communities and rural areas in northern Ontario continue to face challenges that affect the stability and the development of their economy, both in the short and in the long term. Some of these challenges include: geographic isolation from large urban markets to the south; limited telecommunications and transportation infrastructure; static or declining population; a high youth out-migration rate; lower than average employment growth; and limited ability and capacity to respond to the current global economic slowdown.

This great part of our country certainly deserves the support of Canada's government, and I am proud to say that FedNor has been leading the way for years.

Since its inception in 1987, FedNor has been operating successfully within Industry Canada. On a daily basis, FedNor staff work with a diverse client base in an effort to build a stronger and more prosperous northern Ontario. These clients include business leaders and professional groups in the areas of tourism, transportation, telecommunications, resource industries, small business, health research and education.

It appears that the intention of my hon. colleague, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming in tabling this bill is to ensure that the government will provide the support that northern Ontario needs to continue to thrive. Today, FedNor is providing this support and it is doing so quite successfully, I might add.

To understand the implications of the bill, we need to turn the clock back just a bit.

In 1987 the federal economic development initiative for northern Ontario, FedNor, was created to serve the economic development needs of the northern part of this province. It was established as a program within Industry Canada, within its regional operations sector, where it still remains today.

It was in 1995, some eight years later, when Industry Canada, through FedNor, became responsible for administering the community futures program across rural Ontario.

In other regions, the community futures program is administered by the three existing regional development agencies in Canada: the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Western Economic Diversification and the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

What makes the community futures program unique is that each community futures organization counts on the expertise of volunteer boards made up of local residents who bring a variety of expertise to the table.

The community futures program builds on the philosophy that local residents are best positioned to make decisions about the future of their communities. The program has become a driving force for business and for community development across the province of Ontario.

We move some seven years later to 2004 when FedNor took on the responsibility of administering the new eastern Ontario development program. The success of this program can, in part, be attributed to the excellent administration and flexible management structure from which FedNor currently benefits by being part of Industry Canada.

In addition to the responsibilities I have mentioned, FedNor also administers funding for the economic development of official language minority communities in Ontario. This has involved coordinating consultations with our official language minority communities to identify gaps and to identify needs.

FedNor has taken a lead role in promoting the vitality of these communities by working with its community futures partners to bring about service improvements. These efforts are helping to ensure that the community futures development corporations have the support they need to meet the official language needs of their communities.

In the past, FedNor has administered other initiatives in Ontario,on behalf of the Government of Canada, such as the softwood industry community economic adjustment initiative.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I must interrupt the member. When the House returns to this matter, he will have five minutes remaining.

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

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question in the House and the answer really did not address the question at all.

One of the key comments I made was that the Minister of Public Safety was strong on spin, but weak on crime. Now what I need to add is he and his government are tough on police. That is an unfortunate reality of the decisions and the policies of the Conservative government.

Is it not enough that the government has broken its promise to put 2,500 more police on the street? I had a visit from representatives of the police and RCMP. They advised me that the funding, which would not have covered 2,500 police in either case, was not tied to any additional police being hired. Therefore, the funding the Conservative government claimed was for more police, had no accountability that it would actually deliver more police. I could not get any clarity as to whether one additional police officer or RCMP officer had been hired, based on the promise made by the government. That is simply not good enough. We know how critical police are to apprehending criminals and also to preventing crime, an important objective. This is another broken promise.

Second, the approach of the Conservative government to strangle the gun registry is completely not supported by evidence. It is not supported by members of the public. It is not supported by the Association of Chiefs of Police. Police officers use this gun registry 9,000 times a day. More than 5,000 affidavits have been provided by the Canadian Firearms Registry to support the prosecution of firearms related crime and court proceedings.

Having a gun registry, according to the police, is a matter of personal safety for their officers. If a policeman is entering a residence in a building and does not have access to an up-to-date accurate registry to find out whether he or she can expect that he or she will face a gun, that police officer's safety is compromised.

Guns used in tragedies, like the rampage through the École Polytechnique de Montréal in which 14 women lost their lives, would have been registered by the long gun registry.

Finally, the government is opposing the rights of police officers, and that is enough to make me shake my head. The government rolled back its promise on the wages for RCMP officers, would have brought them to a level that was at parity with other police officers in Canada. Now the government is opposing collective bargaining rights for their front line officers, whose lives are at risk on a daily basis through their activities.

I would appeal to the government. Yes, strong laws for those who are guilty of series crimes is important, and the Liberals support that. However, we need strong prevention measures, including supporting our police forces and RCMP, rather than being tough on police.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question put to the House by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra regarding the issue of escalating gang violence in British Columbia, at least that is what it was supposed to be, but she certainly rambled around a whole bunch of issues. I will focus my answer on gang violence in British Columbia.

The government is committed to giving the streets of our cities back to law-abiding citizens. We believe community safety is a defining value, indeed, a fundamental right in Canadian society. The government is taking concrete action on all fronts and is implementing a balanced approach to reducing crime.

We are providing the law enforcement community with the tools it needs to combat crime, and we have recently introduced new crime bills to this effect. We are ensuring there is more police presence in our streets, through increased investments in the RCMP in support of hiring of over 1,000 new RCMP police and civilian staff and through our $400 million police officer fund that supports provinces and municipalities to recruit 2,500 additional officers. We are also supporting effective crime prevention measures that will help communities and families keep youth away from lives of drugs and crime.

We are taking a two-pronged approach, holding accountable before the law those who commit crimes, while helping those who may be at risk before they turn to a life of crime.

In this respect, we have renewed the national crime prevention strategy in 2008, effectively doubling the permanent funding for the strategy. This will lead to more stability and predictability in crime prevention efforts across Canada.

The hon. member of Parliament would be interested to know that the National Crime Prevention Centre is currently funding more than 20 community-based projects in the province of British Columbia, which are designed to steer vulnerable children and youth away from crime. Two of these projects, worth $2.1 million, are funded through the youth gang prevention program to specifically address the issue of gangs by preventing youths from joining gangs in the first place. These multi-year investments will deliver concrete results to British Columbia communities.

Effective crime prevention measures cannot be implemented without the active support of local communities, the voluntary sector, parents, and schools. We are therefore working very closely with them to ensure they have access to the most up-to-date information on what works to prevent crime, especially among children and youth who are most vulnerable to negative influence because of their personal lives and circumstances. Furthermore, we are working very closely with provincial governments to ensure the prevention measures that are developed also respond to their priorities.

The effective responses to crime and insecurity require a coordinated approach that brings together all partners and orders of government in a focused effort to combat violence. That is the approach this government is taking.

Allow me to underscore the point that our efforts to refocus the national crime prevention strategy were designed to maximize its benefits and effects. This is why the strategy now provides support to communities to implement interventions that are based on the best available evidence and target those most in need.

The youth gang prevention fund helps fund community groups that work with troubled youth to prevent them from becoming involved in gang violence by targeting specific risk factors associated with youth gang activity and youth at the highest risk of gang involvement.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to ask the hon. member opposite, who was laughing along with his colleagues while I was speaking, whether he was laughing about the idea of a police officer entering a home and not having information about whether there was a dangerous weapon, or the tragedy at École Polytechnique where 14 young women lost their lives, or at the idea that the RCMP may wish pay parity and that the pay promise be respected by the Conservative government.

Instead, we heard a laundry list of motherhood statements and generalities. I would like know this. What happened to the skills link program, where 550 spaces in the greater Vancouver area have gone down to 110 spaces for the very youth who are most at risk, those who do not graduate from high school and need that program to help get them into the workforce?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through the safer communities strategy, our government is implementing a basket of measures that are both tough and effective on crime. They foster enhanced enforcement, sentencing corrections and prevention efforts.

The refocused approach of crime prevention invests in supporting initiatives that are now more focused on those most at risk of offending, including youth at risk of joining gangs. Our goal is to discourage young people from joining gangs and to help those already involved in gangs to get out and get on the right path.

Let me just finish by suggesting the hon. member make herself far more informed of the allegations she makes. On this side of the House, there happens to be four members who were police officers, who would be happy to speak to the member at any time to explain some of these things. With all due respect, I do not want to get into any disagreement with the member, but it is important she knows what the important issues are to the House and to Canadians.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on March 31 I had the opportunity to ask a question of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. She equally had the opportunity to answer it, but she unfortunately decided to sidestep the question. I welcome this second opportunity and I hope the government does as well.

I want to delve into some of the problems that are faced by people in my riding with respect to employment insurance. In fact, they face two devastating effects of the global economic crisis: its effect on the manufacturing sector in Ontario and on the employment insurance program that systematically discriminates against Ontario residents.

Very specifically, I questioned the minister about a constituent of mine in Don Valley West who had lost her learning-while-working internship program because the program was cut due to the economic crisis we are in. This young woman had worked 724 hours before losing her position. However, because of the outdated regulations governing EI, this young woman was not eligible to receive benefits. Consequently, she has no way to feed her family, pay her rent or survive. However, if she had lived in many other parts of the country, she would have had the requisite hours. She would have qualified and would have collected benefits. This is simply wrong. It is simply not fair.

The current EI system in Canada leaves 60% of unemployed Canadians out in the cold. Think about that. Six out of every 10 Canadians who find themselves unemployed do not qualify for benefits. Something is wrong with this picture. The minister provided and continues to provide unsatisfactory responses when questioned about EI. On her watch, unemployment has continued to rise. All the while, EI has become more and more difficult to collect.

On May 8 it was announced that the unemployment rate is now at 8%, the highest level in seven years. Since October 2008, 321,000 additional Canadians have lost their jobs. Yet, the government is unwilling to revisit the EI program, even though its own constituents must be telling it the same thing. The very nature of unemployment and employment in the economy has changed, so the way that EI works has to change as well. EI needs to be responsive to the situation and it needs to be responsive to people.

We need an EI system that changes with the realities of the economy and the needs of Canadians. If the government were to do something now, perhaps it would save us all from being in a worse situation. If it were to address the EI problem right now, we might all avoid the huge unemployment numbers that Canadians found themselves in the last time the Conservatives were in power. The Liberals had to come to the rescue in 1993.

I remind the House that when the Conservatives left office in 1993, they left an unemployment rate of 11.2%. After 13 years of sound Liberal management, we left a 6.6% unemployment rate. That is what they inherited and they squandered it. They have squandered many things, but they have squandered people's lives and jobs. EI is the best economic stimulus we have to keep the economy going. It is money that gets spent.

Of course, I am supportive of shovel ready infrastructure projects to stimulate the economy. However, my constituents, as individuals, are also shovel ready. They want to work and there is no work for them. They want to keep food on the table and rent paid. EI is money that goes into the economy, helps people keep jobs, and staves off higher unemployment rates. The government should not be afraid of change. It should not be afraid of fairness or equality. It should not be afraid of intelligence or compassion.

The government needs to make the EI system responsive to the economy, which has changed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say at the outset that I always find it amusing whenever a Liberal gets up and starts talking about all the problems within the EI system because, as we know and I think most Canadians know, we inherited the current EI system from the Liberal government. As a matter of fact, when the Liberals first set up this program in 1996, unemployment rates were higher than they are now.

So, what did we do? We took the basic shell, the basic premise of the program, and we made distinct and significant improvements. Prior to this year's budget, we held widespread consultations across Canada, talking to stakeholders, seeing what they would like to have in an EI program.

What did they tell us? First, they said, without question, they would like to see extended benefits at the tail end of the benefit period. We did that. We extended the benefit period by five weeks.

Second, they said they would like to see more money put into skills upgrading and job training for those people who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. We did that. We spent billions of dollars, not only for those people who qualify for EI but we spent over $500 million for skills upgrading programs for those people who did not qualify for EI to begin with.

Last, we extended the work share program by 14 weeks. The result of that is that close to 100,000 Canadians have kept their jobs because of that initiative.

I think the other thing we have to examine here is the significant improvements we made to the EI program. As a once very worthy political mentor of mine said, “Don't compare us against perfection. Compare us against the alternative”.

What I would point out is what the Liberal Party is advocating with respect to EI. It is advocating, as is the NDP, that there be a threshold of 360 hours. Three hundred and sixty hours, and then someone would be able to start collecting EI. Some people might find that to be attractive. However, that is an absolute disaster waiting to happen. It is fiscally irresponsible. What that means, if we break it down, is that anyone who works for 45 days, at 8 hours a day, can qualify for EI. The Liberal Party, quite frankly, does not even know how long those benefits might extend to. It could extend for up to a year.

I think anyone who suggests for a moment that a worker who works for 45 days and then goes on EI for up to a year, who thinks that is a legitimate and fiscally responsible program for Canadians, does not know what they are talking about.

What that means is that employers and employees will have to start paying more money. It is called a payroll tax. Someone has to pay for that. It is just one more tax that the Liberals are advocating.

We know that the leader of the Liberal Party has said he would have to raise taxes to pay for the deficit. He has not told us yet exactly what taxes he would raise and who would pay them. We are starting now to get a glimpse of his plan. This is the first step in the Liberals' raising taxes regime. I expect there will be more to come. However, this is something that no Canadian should stand for. It is, pure and simple, the wrong approach. We do not raise taxes during a recession. That is the Liberal approach and it is the wrong approach.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the very last thing we need to do on this side of the House is take any economic lessons from that side of the House. This is the natural opposing party that simply refuses to govern.

Forty months ago, you inherited a government that was sound. You cut taxes at the wrong time. You left the cupboard bare and you have risked the lives of Canadian citizens daily. You do not know what government is about. You do not know what people's lives are about. You have forgotten what it is to be--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would like to remind the hon. member that he ought to address his remarks through the Chair.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Through you, Mr. Speaker, maybe the Conservatives will get the message. Because the reality is they have forgotten that they are government. Anything that they have done to change EI has been done begrudgingly because we have suggested it. Anything that is about caring for people and providing a social safety net is because we have suggested it. They do not understand the basic economics. Because if 420 hours is good for part of the country, it is good for all of the country. Are the Conservatives now going to cut the number of hours that everybody needs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that if anybody wants to take lessons from the Liberals on the economy, they are living in Technicolor, they are living in dreamland. There is a reason, I would point out to my hon. colleague from Don Valley West, that Canadians chose us in the last election.

I might also add that the Liberal Party, based on its sound economic policy and its sound fiscal record over the 13 years, ended up with 77 seats and 26% of the vote; the lowest vote total the Liberals have had in a generation.

Canadians voted for a Conservative government in the last election, not in spite of the recession but because of it. They know that a Conservative government is the only government that can deal with these tough economic problems we are facing today. And the same will happen again whenever the opposition decides to screw up its courage to force the next election.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on with some questioning. A number of weeks have passed since I asked the question about extending EI benefits to those who were prevented from fishing because of ice conditions. When the question was asked on April 22, the minister said that she understood what was happening with the ice conditions. She said that the employment of fishers was very important. She said, “We are looking after these individuals, and we will be addressing that situation very soon”. It sounded promising.

Under some further questioning, as we got further into it, she said she had been working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on this very issue. At committee, just two days ago, the deputy minister of fisheries and oceans was asked if there were discussions between HRDC and Fisheries and Oceans. She said that there had been no discussions. There was not a problem with ice on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

At our fisheries committee today, we had Earle McCurdy, a representative from the FFAW. We asked him about the ice conditions on the northeast coast of Newfoundland. Mr. McCurdy said he had received hundreds of emails and calls. There were harbours on the northeast coast that were blocked in by ice and there was still nothing forthcoming. The only solution that her department was going to have was that we should wait and wait. Eventually, the ice will melt and move off and we will not have to deal with it.

Let us ask the parliamentary secretary specific questions. Were there discussions? Why was due process not given to ice compensation? Now, he might go on and talk about extending the five extra weeks on employment insurance, because that is what the government did. I have some questions on that, too. The fact of the matter is that most of the clients were already getting the five extra weeks that the government said it was generously giving. There are 58 regions in the country. Thirty-six of those regions were already getting the five weeks, so we are only talking about less than 20 regions that were going to get the extra five weeks.

When the parliamentary secretary talks about the extra weeks, my second question is this. When this was announced in January, my sources tell me that this was only going to impact the 325,000 people who were on EI, which represents less than 25% of the total client base. Could he confirm these numbers and tell us exactly how many people were going to benefit from this initiative that they were already going to get anyway? There were already 10% unemployment levels in many regions of the country and there was more to come.

It was going to happen anyway, but the government likes to say that the extra five weeks was a great thing and that it is doing a lot for EI. The fact of the matter is that it was going to happen anyway. Will the parliamentary secretary answer those two specific questions on employment insurance benefits?

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

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Avalon is relatively new to the House, I may need to repeat myself since he did not seem to hear the answers I gave to his colleague's questions a few moments ago.

I am sorry I need to deal with this the odd time when I deal with members from the Liberal Party but since they are Liberals, I will try to speak slowly and distinctly so I can get the message across.

We inherited the existing EI program from the Liberal Party. Any time I hear the Liberals complaining about the provisions contained in the EI program, it was their program to begin with. If what the hon. member for Avalon said is true, why did his own party not address those very fundamental issues when it had 13 years to do it? It made no progress whatsoever.

When we took office prior to the 2008 election, we held widespread consultations with Canadians from coast to coast to coast looking for ways to improve on the EI system. We knew at that time that Canada and the rest of the world were facing a global economic crisis, a recession, a slowdown, the likes of which we had never seen before. We recognized that we needed to make some significant changes to the EI program to deal with the problems facing the country. What did we do? We started a consultation process.

Again, if we were to contrast that to what the Liberals would do, they would bring in programs without any consultation with stakeholders. That is not the approach the Conservative Party and our government takes.

What we heard during those consultations were three very basic elements. The first thing we heard was that we should extend the benefit period from 45 weeks to a longer period. During consultations, some of the opposition members suggested that we extend it by two weeks but we did more than double that. We extended the EI benefit period by 5 weeks, from 45 to 50 weeks.

The second thing we heard during consultations was that we needed to put more money into skills upgrading and job training. For those unfortunate souls who have lost their job and need to retrain, we decided to add $1.5 billion to increase job training and skills upgrading programs already in existence. That means that over $1 billion in new money is available for those people on EI to upgrade their skills and perhaps find a new craft so they can get back into the workplace as quickly as possible. Not only did we put $1 billion into the EI fund for training, we allocated $500 million for those people who did not qualify for EI so they could receive job training and skills upgrading.

Finally, we heard that we needed to do something about our job share program so we did. This program has allowed over 100,000 people to retain their jobs and the employers to keep employing these people. We extended the work share program by 14 weeks to 52 weeks.

Those are just a few of the improvements we made to the existing program, one that we inherited from the Liberals.

I would suggest to the hon. member for Avalon to please not complain about the program that his party developed and we improved upon.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I may be new to the House but I thought we would get some answers today. However, he did not once mention why we are here today, which is ice compensation. Therefore, I will take from his response that we were right, that here have been no discussions between the two departments on ice compensation and that nothing will be done for the fishers on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would remind my hon. colleague that it was a Liberal government that started the pilot project prior to the Conservatives forming government. They can pat themselves on the back all they want about extending the five weeks, but the Liberal Party started this pilot project long before they got their hands on it. The only thing the Conservatives have done is driven unemployment up to 10%, which means that everybody in the country can get a piece of the pilot project because they are unemployed.

I will again ask the hon. member a specific question regarding ice compensation. Did the two departments talk? Why did the minister mislead the House by saying “We will be addressing the situation very soon”?

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

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is engaged in consultations on a daily basis with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. She has obviously taken the situation on the Atlantic coast very seriously. She is an Atlantic Canadian herself, as all of us know, and she has engaged in consultations with stakeholders.

I would suggest that rather than complaining, the hon. member for Avalon should be working with the government as we try to come to the best compensation and resolution to this very difficult problem.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes under Agriculture and Agri-Food in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.

I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself in committee of the whole.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Agriculture and Agri-Food in the main estimates, Ms. Denise Savoie in the chair)

Agriculture and Agri-food--Main Estimates, 2009-10

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to open this session of committee of the whole by making a short statement on this evening's proceedings.

Tonight's debate is being held under Standing Order 81(4), which provides for each of two sets of estimates selected by the Leader of the Opposition to be considered in committee of the whole for up to four hours. The debate is also held under the motion adopted by unanimous consent yesterday.

Tonight's debate is a general one on all the votes under Agriculture and Agri-Food. Each member will be allocated 15 minutes. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

As provided in the motion adopted yesterday, parties may use each 15 minute slot for speeches or questions and answers by one or more of their members. In the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allotted may speak one after the other. The Chair would appreciate it if the first member speaking in each slot would indicate how the time will be used, particularly if it is to be shared.

When the time is to be used for questions and answers, the Chair will expect that the minister's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the party.

Though members may speak more than once, the Chair will generally try to ensure that all members wishing to speak are heard before inviting members to speak again, while respecting the proportional party rotations for speakers. Members need not be in their own seats to be recognized.

I would remind all hon. members that, according to yesterday's motion, during this evening's debate no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entertained.

As your Chair, I shall be guided by the rules of the committee of the whole and by the motion adopted yesterday. However, in the interest of a full exchange, I am prepared to exercise discretion and flexibility in the application of these rules.

It is important that the traditions of the House in relation to decorum be respected and that members make their remarks and pose their questions in a judicious fashion. The Chair will expect all hon. members to focus on the subject matter of the debate, the main estimates of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, ministers and members should be referred to by their title or riding name and all remarks should be addressed through the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

At the conclusion of tonight's debate, the committee will rise, the estimates under Agriculture and Agri-Food will be deemed reported and the House will adjourn immediately until tomorrow.

We may now begin tonight's session.

The House in committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), the first appointed day, consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Agriculture and Agri-Food in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with the members for Kings—Hants and Willowdale.

Sadly, one area in which the minister has been very successful is increasing the farmers' burden of debt. Could the minister state the current level of farm debt in Canada and tell the House how much that farm debt has increased nationally since the Prime Minister came to office in 2006?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Madam Chair, that is certainly an interesting question from the member opposite but that is more a function of Statistics Canada than agriculture.

I can assure the member opposite that we do keep track of those numbers. I can get him those at some point. I know we have them here.

However, I would make the point that there is debt and then there is good debt. We have put forward a program in the last few days. We are trying to re-jig the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act to ensure that a fresh $1 billion gets out there to beginning farmers, to new farmers—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Chair, on a point of order.

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It was understood that there would be no calls for points of order in this evening's session but I do take the point.