Debates of May 29th, 2009

Forestry Industry

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity he has given me to comment. In recent days, we have seen an escalation in the pernicious Liberal partisanship as regards our citizens. They are propagating illusions and false hope motivated by the obsession to win at all costs. Over the past few days, the Liberals have shown that they are two-faced. I invite members of the Bloc to show solidarity with the forestry sector.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to put it mildly, this response is ridiculous. The government is hiding behind the special committee on forestry to justify its inaction. It is a well known fact that forestry companies need cash flow. The industry, the Government of Quebec, the unions and the elected regional officials have pointed it out. They need liquidity.

What is the government waiting for to open its ears, respond intelligently and provide the cashflow and loan guarantees that the industry has asked for?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, while the Bloc is playing politics at the expense of workers and promising measures that could jeopardize the industry, our government is providing concrete assistance to the industry to protect forestry families and communities.

Employment Insurance

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the consensus for a comprehensive reform of the EI system is growing every day. Unions and a number of conferences of elected representatives from the regions of Quebec are calling for the modernization of the system that the Liberals created and that no longer meets current unemployment needs.

Will this Conservative government finally realize that the job world is experiencing exceptional circumstances that demand a comprehensive response?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that having a job meets people's basic needs for self-esteem and fulfilment. Everyone has the right to a satisfying professional life that allows them to live well. That is why we have introduced our economic action plan, with real measures to help people get through the economic crisis.

We have increased the number of benefit weeks by five. We have also added 14 weeks to the work sharing program. We also invested in workforce training so that workers are better trained for the future, while being paid to take the training. Not to mention that we have frozen EI premium rates.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that if the recession were to get worse, he would do more to help the unemployed. The Bloc's plan, which is more comprehensive than the Liberals', proposes creating a 360-hour eligibility threshold, abolishing the waiting period, increasing benefits from 55% to 60% of income, and increasing insurable earnings to $42,500.

The recession is happening right now. What is the government waiting for?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Bloc's ideology that encourages a climate of social uncertainty, Canada's economic action plan gives hope to Canadians. Our plan contributes to a promising and prosperous future.

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

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

Mr. Speaker, for 2008 and 2009, David Denison was rewarded with a $6 million bonus, Mark Wiseman got $5 million, Donald Raymond was awarded $3.5 million, Graeme Eadie received $3.2 million. What did they do? These four executives of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board lost $24 billion.

How can they gamble with Canada's pensions on the market, lose so big and be rewarded with $18 million over two years? How can that be possible? Why will the government not do anything about this?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

I said in answer to an earlier question, Mr. Speaker, that even for those who are arm's length from the government, such as this independent body that was established by an act of Parliament that most parliamentarians voted for, we expect compensation to be reasonable.

The compensation has been reduced by 31% since last year. In actuality, it is over a four-year average. Over that four years, that is a very sound investment board.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, in the election, the Prime Minister said we would have no deficit. In November, that changed to a small surplus. In January, that changed again to a $34 billion deficit. Now the Conservatives are admitting to the largest shortfall in Canadian history. The finance minister has changed his numbers so often that no one is confident he knows what he is doing.

For the good of the country, will the Prime Minister agree to turn the books over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer for an honest appraisal?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. We have a very competent finance minister, who has done a great job of leading us through the outcome of a worldwide recession. In fact, we have put $29 billion, almost 2% of the GDP, into the economy as stimulus money this year.

We care about Canadians. We are helping Canadians. We are there to help industries that are struggling. We are there to help those who are unemployed.

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

Mr. Speaker, that side does not know how to create jobs, it does not know how to get the stimulus out the door, and tragically it either cannot be honest with Canadians or it does not know how to count. No one trusts the Conservatives because they are making it up as they go along.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer exists to take the politics and the posturing out of this. That is what the Prime Minister said he would do. Will the Prime Minister agree to let the professionals evaluate the books?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member talks about the deficit but then in the same breath proposes billions and billions of dollars of additional spending that would make the deficit even larger.

That is the same position of her coalition leader, the leader of the Liberal Party, who on the one hand criticizes the deficit and on the other proposes a 45 day work year under EI that would balloon the deficit even more. He opposes the auto bailout when he is in B.C., but wants it to be bigger when he is in Ontario.

The coalition should start to take a consistent position so we can understand where it is coming from.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, recently re-elected Premier Gordon Campbell added his voice to the chorus calling for a national standard on EI. He joins a diverse group, including the CCPA, labour unions, the C.D. Howe Institute, the TD Bank, a number of premiers and even the finance minister's wife. What these people understand, but the Conservatives do not, is that EI is perfect stimulus spending.

We know that individuals spend the money right away because they need the money to survive. For every $1 of EI, we generate $1.60 of economic activity. It makes perfect economic sense. Is that why the government opposes it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting to have that coming from the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, when in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development on April 1, 2008, he had this to say on regional rates when the benefits go up and the period lessens when the unemployment rates go up: “It is my view that if you get rid of the regional rates and there are changes forced on the EI system because of the economic circumstances, those in high unemployment regions will be hurt disproportionately”.

He favours the regional rates and now he is talking against them. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth, “Don't increase the deficit; spend more”.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has been making a lot more sense since he started quoting Liberals, even taken out of context. The Conservatives say that they are bringing fairness to EI at this difficult time.

Let us put it in context. The Minister of Finance's $50 billion deficit for one year could fund our proposal for the next 40 years. Our proposal would support 150,000 families, who would then immediately put it into the real economy. They need the money and so does the economy.

That is a win-win. It is economically prudent, fiscally responsible, perfect stimulus for families and the economy. Is that why the government just does not get it?

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

Mr. Speaker, this government does get it. That is why we spent $1 billion on skills upgrading and training. That is why we have added benefits across the line.

However, let us quote what Harvey Enchin from The Vancouver Sun had to say about the Liberal plan. He said, “The Liberal option not only seems to be illogical but it would raise the federal deficit—and probably taxes—while doing nothing to address the fact that many jobs that have been lost are not coming back. The Conservative government is on the right track to reject it. The federal government is on the right track with investment in skills training and transition payments”.

That is what we are doing. That is what Canadians want.

Government Spending

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to use the size of the deficit to justify its mean-spirited cuts to funding for culture and scientific research. As we all know, there are other areas in which the Conservatives could have cut spending to better balance the budget. For example, the government's advertising expenses have doubled since the Conservatives came to power.

Why are the Conservatives so lacking in judgment and so incompetent?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure where to go with that. The hon. member voted in favour of an economic action plan that increased funding to arts and culture in this country. I would hope that she looked at what she voted in favour of.

Have we reviewed things? Have we looked to make sure we are spending every single tax dollar as effectively and efficiently as we possibly can? You bet, Mr. Speaker. Canadians expect us to do that. We have put our money where our mouth is on arts and culture.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives would rather spend taxpayers' money on politicking than on stimulating the economy. They have spent nearly $90 million on advertising and $31 million on polls—two polls a day. In two years, they have spent a billion dollars—a billion dollars—on consultants like the one who helped the Minister of Finance make such an outrageous mistake about the size of the deficit.

How many closed laboratories and cancelled cultural tours could that money have saved?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about playing politics, but here is what her leader had to say about politics in an op-ed for the New York Times on August 5, 2007:

...politics is theater. It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel.

That is what her leader wrote, as an MP, in an op-ed in the New York Times. While the Liberals pretend to care about what is going on in Canada, this Conservative government is actually acting in the interest of Canadians.

Environment

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is once again in the process of rewriting the plan to tackle climate change, and that is further delaying the implementation of reduction targets. We are now on our fourth report. These reports began with the Liberals and now various Conservative ministers are doing it too.

Instead of hiding behind excuses, will the minister admit that the only reason for all of these ploys and reports is that he is trying to protect his oil company buddies?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, this government has been very clear that we are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020. That is one of the toughest targets in Canadian history.

The minister has already announced regulations for vehicle tailpipe emissions. He will be announcing regulations for thermal coal, and he will shortly be announcing the government's offset policies. We are providing strong leadership on the environment. Our international and continental partners are catching up to us as we harmonize a global approach.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that, as of yesterday, the government has no strategy, no plan, no policy and no regulations. That is a fact.

Next December, an environmental summit will be held in Copenhagen to figure out what to do after Kyoto. Many other countries are setting their GGE reduction targets for phase II of Kyoto, but Canada does not even have a plan to get started on phase I.

Will the minister honour Canada's signature and implement a real plan to fight climate change right now?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that member voted against $350 million going to Quebec to help it with its environmental program. He voted against $1 billion for green infrastructure, $300 million for eco-energy retrofits and $1 billion for carbon capture and storage. Two weeks ago the committee travelled to Alberta to study greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands and he was not there. One would even question whether he really cares about the environment.