Debates of May 28th, 2009

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our government is working very hard with all the games stakeholders to ensure that both official languages are properly used in all aspects of the games.

Francophone communities from across Canada will have access to the games in their mother tongue. The Vancouver 2010 Olympics and Paralympics will be much better than the Calgary games of 1988. The games will be bilingual like no other. Canada can be proud of the place it accords this country's linguistic duality.

I would point out that the member opposite is in no position to give lessons on bilingualism, as his own website is unilingual.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to an issue that I first raised with the minister on April 28 and that is the issue of eligibility for employment insurance.

This is a critical issue, not just for my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl but one that reaches every corner of our country and one that the government is really failing to address. Unfortunately, the government would rather leave Canadian families to fend for themselves than to fix this crucial program.

I believe, as my party does, that a temporary national 360 hour standard of EI eligibility should be introduced for as long as the economic crisis in Canada persists. This would help families, as it would make it easier for workers who have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, to qualify for benefits during this crucial time of economic downturn.

There are 58 regional standards currently governing the eligibility and benefit periods for EI, and they are clearly not meeting the needs of our country and our families.

Let me give a few examples of this. To qualify for benefits in my riding, workers need a minimum of 630 hours of insured work. This standard exists for both St. John's and Mount Pearl as well as the rural community of the Goulds as well as the fishing community of Petty Harbour. No consideration is given for the different industries in these communities, but all are simply subject to the same standard as the urban areas which have a very different economic picture. During this time of record job losses there are varying standards that are creating unfair problems for my constituents.

I recently heard of a young woman in my riding who was an occupational therapist and has been laid off from her job. Her hours had been already scaled back. She was mostly working part-time in the months leading up to the permanent layoff. As a first time filer in my region, she needed 840 hours to qualify for the benefits. The reduction in hours and taking part-time work meant that she only had 581 insurable hours, not nearly enough to qualify.

I think about the fisheries workers in Petty Harbour, for example, who work hand in hand in fish plants with colleagues just one community over. They tell me that the eligibility rules are completely different. They need to have 630 hours to qualify. The people in the next community that they work hand over hand with in the same region of my province, the same area, have to have only 420 hours. That makes a disparity for some people because of the downturn in the fisheries industry. They will not even qualify this year. Does the minister not understand that?

I could go on. One of the processing plants, for example, was scaled back in recent years and another constituent of mine decided to leave the province looking for work. That happens all too often in my province. People have to travel outside the province looking for work.

This individual went with a friend who lives in another community, not necessarily in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl but a more rural riding. Both worked side by side. One qualified for EI and the other needed an additional 200 hours.

The government's solution to a national crisis is just to reannounce training funding when fewer than 40% of unemployed Canadians actually qualify for this. It seems like the government's solution to the EI crisis really has not been effective.

I note in response to my question the minister stated, “The worse the situation gets, the easier it is for people to collect benefits”. That is not quite the answer we were looking for. Yes, businesses are closing. Companies are failing. More Canadians are losing jobs and the thresholds are really not changing. It is an inadequate strategy.

Does the government fail to understand that people are losing their jobs, that they need help now, that it needs to expand the EI system, or is it just going to fail people as it has failed the economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hear the concerns raised by the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. Of course, our government is concerned by the job losses being experienced by Canadians. As I said earlier this week, our government is absolutely committed to helping Canadians through this crisis and we will continue to do so.

Our government is making unprecedented investments to help vulnerable and unemployed Canadians. Among other things, we have extended EI benefits by five weeks, more than double the two weeks advocated for by the opposition. We have extended the work-sharing program. More than 110,000 Canadian jobs are being protected by working with Canadian employers to share costs and avoid layoffs.

We are investing $500 million in skills training and upgrading for long-tenured workers, $1 billion in further training through the EI program, and $500 million in training for those who do not qualify for EI. We have made changes that will process claims faster and cut red tape for employers. To do so, we have invested more than $60 million for processing, including hiring additional staff to manage workload and implement budget measures.

We are also monitoring the effectiveness of these measures to ensure that they are effectively helping Canadians. However, what we will not do is implement the Liberal 360 hour, 45 day work year idea. The opposition members can say what they want about this scheme, but the fact is that this irresponsible proposal would result in a massive increase in job-killing payroll taxes that will hurt workers and businesses alike at a time when they can least afford it. This irresponsible proposal certainly will not help Canadians find new jobs or get new skills. It will simply add billions to the tax burden on Canadians.

Let us see what others are saying about this irresponsible Liberal plan. In the Vancouver Sun, on May 26, Harvey Enchin said:

The Liberal option not only seems illogical but it would raise the federal deficit--and probably taxes--while doing nothing to address the fact that many of the jobs that have been lost are not coming back. The Conservative government is right to reject it...The federal government is on the right track with investment in skills training and transition programs.

In the Calgary Herald, on May 26, Don Martin said:

But just 360 hours to qualify? For a benefit payment period that's just shy of a year? Come on, that's a bit rich, even for Liberals...Yet there are many better ways to reform the system, starting with the Conservatives' re-announced $500-million to stretch benefits for long-term workers--

Unlike the opposition's hollow rhetoric and irresponsible plans, our government's economic action plan is helping Canadians get new skills for new jobs. It is helping Canadians through these tough economic times. Unlike the opposition, on this side of the House, we will not force all working Canadians and businesses to pay more taxes for this irresponsible and ill-conceived proposal.

Our government is helping and will continue to help Canadians get the training they need for the jobs of tomorrow. We will continue to help preserve jobs so that hard-working Canadians can continue to pay their mortgages and provide for the needs of their families.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear, in the response, that the Conservatives are committed to helping Canadians through this crisis. I would just like to know when they are going to start.

The member responded by talking about the EI training program. While I am fully supportive of funding for training, it is not going to help one single new worker qualify for EI. That particular worker will not be able to benefit under this program. In his response, he talked about monitoring measures to see if they work. I hope the government is monitoring measures because it will see very quickly that they are not working right now for Canadian workers who have lost their jobs.

One of the ways we can stimulate the economy and help families is by making some changes to EI. If Canadians cannot qualify for assistance in the first place, how is it going to do them any good?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, over 80% of those who pay into EI do qualify. There is a monetary program for those who do not qualify. Regardless of what the member may say, the fact is that we are making unprecedented investments to help vulnerable and unemployed Canadians.

We are investing $8.3 billion in the Canada skills and transition strategy to help Canadians recover from this downturn and to better position themselves after this economic downturn for the prosperity and opportunities that lie ahead. The Liberal plan is to adopt irresponsible NDP proposals to change EI. They are proposals that will do absolutely nothing to help Canadians acquire new skills so that they can get the jobs of the future.

The only thing the Liberal plan will do is add billions more to the tax burden facing hard-working Canadians at a time when they can least afford it. Higher taxes are the last thing Canadians need when they are trying to get through these tough economic times. That approach is simply irresponsible and it will not be supported by this government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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 Fisheries and Oceans 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 Fisheries and Oceans in the main estimates, Mr. Andrew Scheer in the chair)

Fisheries and Oceans--Main Estimates, 2009-10

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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)(a), 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 on Tuesday, May 26, 2009.

Tonight's debate is a general one on all the votes under Fisheries and Oceans. 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 on Tuesday, parties may use each 15 minute slot for speeches or for 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 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 Tuesday'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 on Tuesday. 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 Fisheries and Oceans.

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 Fisheries and Oceans will be deemed reported and the House will adjourn immediately until tomorrow.

We may now begin this evening's session. The House in committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a).

The second appointed day, consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Fisheries and Oceans in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, I will take advantage for an opportunity to ask 10 minutes of questions to the minister followed by questions from the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for 5 minutes.

I would like to know several things. The fishery is clearly in crisis, that we do know. Not only is the lobster fishery in crisis but the crab and shrimp fisheries are as well. In fact, for nearly every commercial fishery in Canada today harvesting costs are exceeding the price fishermen are getting at the wharf.

Would the minister respond to the new challenges facing the fishery by ending the collection of licence and monitoring fees and refund the millions of dollars that have already been taken from the pockets of people who have serious trouble paying the bills they already have, yes or no? Will licence and monitoring fees be ended?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Chair, I know that fishers are having a tough time in this economic downturn. What has happened in the markets is affecting all sectors across the country and the fishery is no different. The government has committed to reviewing the licence fees in the industry and we will be doing that over the next little while.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, the review is in. The industry is already in crisis and this would go a long way in assisting fishermen.

I have in my hands a press release that has been issued by the minister, issued from the Conservative Party, using federal government funds. It directs media to call a phone number and talk to ministerial and departmental staff members for further information on Conservative Party matters. I will happily table that.

Could the minister tell the committee if she feels it is proper for the minister to have federal government employees listed as the contact for the Conservative Party of Canada on its press releases?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, as I have said before in the House, that was an administrative error. It should not have gone out under departmental letterhead.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, if there is no money for fishermen, could the minister say or explain to us how much money was actually spent using departmental resources, fisheries and oceans resources, on issuing partisan press releases? How much money was given back to the treasury as a result?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, actually that was paid by the Conservative Party of Canada. It was not paid by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, if we could find out exactly how much that would be that would be very helpful because, of course, there were preparation costs and the use of a private sector distributor called Marketwire. In fact, if we go to Marketwire, that press release is still on the website today and still lists government employees as the Conservative Party of Canada's contact.

However, let us get to the business of fish now. The federal government is providing Canada's auto sector with approximately $15 billion in financial assistance in the wake of this economic crisis. That $15 billion is for an industry that generates $90 billion in annual sales. Obviously the government believes that a stimulus for the auto industry is required that is roughly 20% of the auto industry's annual sales.

The Atlantic lobster industry, however, is worth $1 billion, and it has been assisted with just 1% of the industry's annual value: $10 million for advertising. It gives 20% here and 1% for the lobster industry.

Will the minister commit to providing a minimum of $200 million in support for Atlantic Canada's lobster fishermen, representing 20% of that industry's annual value, yes or no?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, this government has done much for fisheries in Atlantic Canada. The first thing that it did back in 2006 was establish the $500,000 capital gains exemption for fishers, and budget 2007 expanded this amount to $750,000. I know, from being a provincial politician, this is something the fishers were asking for, for a long time, from a Liberal government that ignored them.

The hon. member cannot stand and pretend that he is the saviour of the fishers here when he did nothing while he was there.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, the minister has often suggested that her government's approved access to credit and initiatives to build wharves will help fishermen today facing immediate personal financial crisis. Those statements kind of speak for themselves. They just do not fly with fishermen who cannot pay their bills today.

Immediate changes to how EI benefits are determined this year, income support, support for inventory costs and a federal government-funded, licensed rationalization program are what is needed.

Could the minister tell us if any of these much needed programs are coming or just press releases paid for by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the Conservative Party of Canada, because that is all the minister has provided thus far?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, when we did prebudget consultations prior to the budget, one of the things that was asked for by the industry was access to credit. I can assure the hon. member that BDC and EDC have assisted the industry a lot to ensure that buyers are buying this year and that processors are processing this year. If it were not for that, we would be in much worse shape.

I can assure him that in discussions with the provinces, the provincial loan boards are willing to come to the table to provide some flexibility and provide short term relief to the industry. I know that fishers are doing what they can to cut their costs.

In the medium and the long terms, we are supporting the industry to help the market recover with $10 million in marketing money, and that is where it has to come from, an increase in the markets.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, someone needs to explain why lobster buyers reduced buying or stopped buying altogether, or why the shrimp industry is now shut down in Newfoundland. If access to credit is so readily available, that would be a very good question that a fishermen from eastern Canada would love to have answered.

However, I will now quote the minister who said that Canada has now “assumed custodial management of the fishery in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) regulatory area”. However, members of this chamber know the truth. If Canada has custodial management of the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks, why is the European Union continuing to rape cod stocks by overfishing millions of pounds of cod as bycatch? This was a fact that was acknowledged by her own government in a memorandum to NAFO from Canada, which I hold in my hand.

Does the minister really believe that Canada has custodial management in her hands, in the hands of her platform, or is that just another piece of Conservative rhetoric?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, we do recognize the fishing rights of other nations. What we will not accept is the abuse of those rights. Through our leadership, NAFO has established tough rules that severely punish overfishing. Those found to be breaking the rules face stiff penalties and risk being taken off the water.

Canada is the main NAFO party that patrols the NAFO regulatory area and enforces these rules. Through our leadership, diplomacy and enforcement efforts at NAFO, we have achieved the objectives of custodial management over the NAFO regulatory area.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, that is why the World Wildlife Fund had to put out a press release explaining that the European Union is the chief culprit in overcatches of cod as a bycatch fishery. It had to do something about it because the government certainly was not doing anything about it.

With regard to the NAFO convention that her government promised would be brought to the floor of this chamber, will the minister assure this chamber that there will be no new or increased allocations of shrimp or any other species awarded to other NAFO member states, such as the Faroe Islands in respect of Denmark, to buy their votes for the ratification of the new NAFO charter? Will the minister assure this House of that point?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, that is not the way Canada conducts itself on the international stage.

While we are disappointed that members have overrun the bycatch targets for cod, we will be pressing NAFO contracting parties to address the issue at the next annual meeting that will take place later this year. While they are legally binding bycatch limits, the targets for 3NO cod were much more stringent and were voluntary. In fact, the cod recovery plan adopted by NAFO in 2007 says that if a targeted reduction is not achieved, the fisheries commission is to consider additional measures for subsequent years and contracting parties will consider additional measures.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, I believe that question was on shrimp.

However, according to the most recent data provided by the federal government's own Canadian Ice Service, ice along the northeast coast of Newfoundland remains well above average, according to the government's own agency. The most extensive and extreme ice conditions have existed for 15 years today.

Will the minister now acknowledge that the northeast coast does indeed have an ice problem? She would not before.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, we do not deny that there is ice in Newfoundland. Of course there is ice in Newfoundland, but in the past the Government of Canada has occasionally provided financial assistance to harvesters where there were unusually severe ice conditions that persisted well into the fishing season and the fishers were not able to reach their grounds and earn the income.

Most recently, such assistance was provided in 2007. Ice conditions in 2009 have been much less severe.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the minister how the $10 million will contribute to the survival of lobster fishers in southeastern New Brunswick next season.