Debates of May 25th, 2009

Employment Insurance

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like the Liberals before them, the Conservatives are making it harder and harder for people to benefit from employment insurance.

What is stopping the government from adopting a good-faith approach, as it does with income taxes? Why the arrogant attitude? Why consider all unemployed workers to be potential fraudsters?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that, during these difficult economic times, we are investing $12 billion in various infrastructure projects across the country. We have put such measures in place to support economic activity, as well as unemployed workers and workers who are having a hard time.

Today, we announced a $500 million investment to help laid-off, long-tenured workers with many years of experience undertake professional development or retrain. From now on, individuals transitioning to a new field can collect employment insurance benefits for up to two years.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when workers and the unemployed heard that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was going to make an announcement about employment insurance, they hoped that the government had finally understood, had finally listened to reason. They hoped that the Conservatives would do what had to be done and improve access to employment insurance.

However, the government decided not to give any hope to those excluded from the existing system. Why?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party came out against our budget before it was even presented in the House of Commons. I suggest they were unlikely to change their minds either before or after the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development made the impressive announcement of more than $500 million of additional supports that will provide help to more than 40,000 Canadians who are desperately seeking employment.

These are the types of tools that will give unemployed Canadians the hand up and provide them with the support they need. The Liberals and the NDP want to dig deeper into the pockets of hard-working Canadians, raise payroll taxes and kill jobs. That is a bad prescription for the economy of Canada.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was nothing new here. The government simply re-announced money that had already been announced in the budget. Then, it cut every dollar that was to go to a worker for retraining down to 25 cents. That is what it did.

The fact is that the New Democratic Party has laid out a plan that has been endorsed and adopted by the House. It lays out what should happen: reduce the number of hours needed to qualify; expand the eligibility rules; eliminate the two-week penalty that is imposed and increase the benefits.

The House adopted the changes. Canadians want to see the changes happen. Why did the government not get it done?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, one big change we have seen in this session of Parliament is that the NDP and the leader of the NDP are now writing economic policy for the Liberal Party. That is a real shame. It is exactly what we saw in the coalition.

This government came forward with a plan to provide 40,000 more Canadians with the help and support they need. The NDP and the Liberal leader are suggesting that if a person works for 45 days, he or she can be eligible for unemployment insurance for upwards of a year.

That would result in massive increases in taxes. It would hurt an economy that is struggling. Those of us on this side of the House will not buy into that socialist scheme to raise taxes that is purported by the leader of the Liberal Party.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first they attacked workers and next it is going to be seniors. What we face today is a crisis in our pension plans. People need to know that there is going to be some security, protection and enhancement of their pensions. They are concerned about what has happened during the economic crisis, as they see their savings frittered and whittled away by what has gone on in the markets.

Today, provinces, labour leaders and others are calling for a pension summit. The question is whether the government will get serious about taking leadership on the pension issue and begin to take steps towards a summit, a national strategy or a policy, or is it just going to leave seniors to—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is this government, not the NDP, that has brought forward a range of services and support to help seniors. It is this government that brought forward specific tax cuts to specifically support seniors and increases and changes to the guaranteed income supplement to help those seniors who are most vulnerable. It is no surprise that all this party wants to do is raise taxes one day and then have summits the next.

I can say that this side of the House is committed to an economic action plan that will give more jobs, more hope and less taxes to Canadians, unlike the Liberal leader and his friend in the NDP.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the only things in the House that are shovel-ready are the answers from that minister.

When I heard the minister was making an EI change this morning, I hoped she had seen the light and had maybe decided to stop the distortions and the untruths and offer something to help the many thousands of Canadians who are victims of this Conservative recession, but no, not even close. It was a rehash a previously announced plans, once again.

Did the Conservatives standardize benefits? No. Did they bring regional fairness to EI, a national 360-hour standard? No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is shovelling, but let me read his remark with respect to the job skills upgrading and training we are doing and the dollars we are investing, the $500,000. Here is what he said in an interview today, “The Liberals very much support training, particularly retraining for laid-off workers. We think it is very, very important”. I do not know what the member is shovelling, but he should get behind this program and support it.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to mislead Canadians about EI. It knows it is misleading them and dividing people. It is deliberate and it does not care.

It insults victims of this Conservative recession by suggesting that people want to be unemployed. It does not want to make it “too easy” to get EI. Does the government not understand that no Canadian wants to lose a job? They do not want their friends or neighbours to lose their jobs either. What Canadians want is the Prime Minister to lose his job.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is trying to do is to play politics on the backs of the most vulnerable Canadians who are going through a difficult time.

This is what the member for Acadie—Bathurst said, “The Liberals are trying to score political points on EI that they have cut themselves”.

If the Liberals are going to add benefits to this program, how are they going to do it? By raising taxes, like the leader of the Liberal opposition said, or are they going to raise job-killing taxes by imposing EI premiums?

Here is what the member for Kings—Hants said, “Payroll taxes and EI taxes in particular prevent businesses from hiring people. Payroll taxes, especially EI taxes are—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Halifax West.

Medical Isotopes

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the government announced that all activities at the Chalk River laboratories will stop for an indefinite period. The government does not know if it will be two months, eight months, or something else.

For the 5,000 Canadians awaiting diagnosis every day in Canada, this is a “catastrophe”, as one expert, Dr. François Lamoureux, said yesterday.

What will this government do to assure Canadians that this will be the last isotope crisis?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his concern on the issue. Indeed, it is serious.

AECL informed us last week that it would not be restarting the national research universal reactor. As a result, we do have a shortage in medical isotopes at the moment.

The government is working in two ways.

First, we are seeking to ensure global supply. This is a global issue. We are working with our counterparts in four other countries in order to increase global supply.

Second, we are working to manage the shortage that we currently have. The Minister of Health is reaching out to the provinces and the territories. She is speaking with them about triage, prioritization and alternate methods.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canada last failed to supply the world with medical isotopes 18 months ago. The Prime Minister's response was to scapegoat Canada's nuclear safety regulator.

Now we have the Prime Minister's hand-picked new minister, new executive at AECL, new nuclear safety regulator and over $300 million invested in Chalk River. The end result is things are worse, an indefinite shutdown, 5,000 Canadians put at risk every day.

What is the government doing to ensure this never happens again?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, in December we released a statement indicating our five point plan to deal with contingencies in case of an unexpected medical isotope shortage. We have put those five steps into play, and I highlighted those previously.

As well, I think it is important to point out that in 13 years five Liberal cabinet ministers had been privy to the information regarding this reactor and the five cabinet ministers did nothing.

Forestry Industry

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance admitted that the manufacturing sector will never recover the force it once had in its heyday, and that it will make up a smaller portion of our economy for the next few years. If nothing more is done, the same fate awaits the forestry sector.

Instead of giving up on the future of the forestry industry, why will the minister not do everything he can to save and defend this industry, as he did for the auto sector?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the question because the translation was not coming through.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking why the Minister of Finance is doing nothing for Quebec's forestry industry. The government thinks it will help silviculture by injecting only $100 million over two years. That is absolutely false. Guy Chevrette of the Quebec Forest Industry Council warns that the industry is heading toward bankruptcy.

How can the government do this? What is it waiting for to wake up and grant loan guarantees, as called for by the entire forestry industry?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his questions, but once again, there are also many falsehoods in what he just said.

Not long ago, my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, and I had the pleasure of meeting with all the Canadian forestry industry presidents, who confirmed their very strong desire to maintain the softwood lumber agreement, which allowed for some stability when the global economic crisis and the market crisis were not such an issue.

We recently announced that Export Development Canada had supported the forestry industry through financial services to Quebec worth over $9 billion last year. Therefore, it is false to say we are not doing anything.

Afghanistan

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after the Minister of National Defence stated last week that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan might be extended beyond 2011, Afghan sources indicated that President Obama would require NATO members, including Canada, to provide more ground resources.

Will the government again say no to President Obama and remind him that this House has decided that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the Canadian government's position. Its position is unchanged and reflects the will of the members of the House of Commons expressed in a motion that was passed, establishing six priorities and the end to our combat mission in 2011.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals, voted to end the current mission in July 2011. That is the truth.

Therefore, is the government committed to withdrawing Canadian soldiers from all combat zones at that time? Yes or no?