Debates of April 1st, 2010

The Economy

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader thinks his tax and spend approach will create jobs and economic growth. He is wrong. These are failed Liberal policies from a generation ago. They did not work then and they will not work now.

We know this because yesterday Statistics Canada reported that for the fifth consecutive month Canada's economy grew. In five of the past seven months, Canada has seen job gains and since July almost 160,000 new jobs have been created. Lower taxes are helping fuel Canada's recovery.

Our government believes that families, businesses and individuals deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. We are the only party in this House that believes this and we are proud of our government's record on reducing taxes. Yet the Liberal leader would throw Canada's advantage away by recklessly establishing a job-killing business tax, raising the GST and imposing a carbon tax.

Simply put, the Liberal leader's tax and spend agenda would hurt families and set Canada back.

Status of Women

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wrote to his ministers and ministers of state when they assumed office. In his statement on ministerial responsibility and accountability, he stated that it was the responsibility of ministers:

...to uphold the highest standards of probity and ethical conduct in recognition of the fact that it is a privilege and a trust to participate in the process through which Canadians govern themselves.

I wonder if the Prime Minister could please tell us how the standards, which he himself set out so clearly in the letter he wrote to all ministers, are compatible with the behaviour of the minister of state for women.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of state for women has answered all questions on the matters that have been raised.

The minister of state continues to do good work for Canadian women. I note, for example, the tabling of the matrimonial property rights bill, and the support we have received on that from the Native Women's Association of Canada. I note the strong job growth and the strong economic growth figures we had yesterday which indicates that not just the minister of state for women but that all ministers of this government continue to do good work on things that matter.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we now know that this document, which the Prime Minister released with such fanfare when his cabinet was appointed, actually means nothing.

We have a minister who clearly was in breach of transport regulations because of her behaviour at an airport. We have a minister who told the House that there was only one assistant who wrote four letters. We now know there were five assistants who wrote at least ten letters.

How is that behaviour in any way compatible with the standards that the Prime Minister set out in his own guidelines? He is in breach of his own guidelines.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Minister of State (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of misinformation in the member's question and I have in fact addressed those issues.

However, I will take the opportunity to use this time to highlight today one of the great projects that we just finalized, working with Madame Jeannette Corbiere Lavell of the Native Women's Association of Canada. As members know, Sisters in Spirit and the incredible research they did came to a close yesterday, but today we finalized the first of a series of projects over the next five years to help address the very serious issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's behaviour is no longer the issue; the issue is the Prime Minister's standards. That is the issue. This question is for the Prime Minister, not the minister.

What does it mean when the Prime Minister's document says that ministers will be held to a certain standard of personal conduct, yet clearly the message is that the minister can get away with anything? This is the Prime Minister's scandal now.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Minister of State (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed this issue a number of times. However, I will tell the member opposite that I, along with our government, have done a significant number of things to benefit Canadian women, including the positive change that we have made at Status of Women Canada , where we have an action plan for women which is focused on three pillars: women's economic security, ending violence against women, and seeing more women in leadership and democracy across the country.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's resistance to accept his responsibility and fire the Minister of State for the Status of Women is really beyond belief. Canadians are registering their disgust by saying, “I'm a Conservative. I'm not a fan of her. I won't vote for her again. I think she should be asked to step down”. Those are just the people in the minister's own constituency.

Why is the Prime Minister the only person left who thinks the minister should remain in cabinet?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has spoken to the issues that have been raised by the member for Malpeque on a good number of occasions.

What we should be focusing on are the priorities of Canadians. We are beginning to see a fragile economic recovery take hold in this country. We have seen more than a quarter million net new jobs be created across Canada these past six months. We saw in January alone the economy in Canada grow by 0.6%. That is more jobs, more hope and more opportunity.

Let us focus on the Canadian people's business.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, has there already been a trip to Rideau Hall? The usually bombastic Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities seems to be now the meek and mild minister for public apology.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The hon. member for Malpeque has the floor.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The minister is well-known for dispatching her own employees. She has reportedly gone through five chiefs of staff, five communication directors and seven drivers as minister.

When will the Prime Minister say that enough is enough, accept his responsibility, apply the ministerial code and fire his minister?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about that long rant by the member for Malpeque but I do thank him for his comments on my performance.

Let us look at the Conference Board of Canada. It released a report just yesterday that said:

Increased infrastructure spending is estimated to have contributed about 0.4 per cent to overall economic growth in Canada in 2009. And...this year, another 0.5% ...GDP growth....

That is great news. We are seeing a fragile economic recovery take hold. We are pleased with the economic news we have seen so far but we are not satisfied. We will remain focused on jobs and the economy.

Employment Insurance

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by way of explaining why he had voted against eliminating the waiting period, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup said that there had to be a minimum period for analysis, to ensure that people were really entitled to EI. The time for analysis has nothing to do with the waiting period. What is more, the member is implying that the unemployed are out to defraud the system.

Instead of coming up with bogus, insulting excuses for refusing to eliminate the waiting period, will the Prime Minister abide by the will of the House and give royal recommendation to the Bloc Québécois bill?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Bloc that should explain its position. This government has created many measures to help the unemployed during this global recession, but the Bloc has voted against those measures.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I invite him to debate with me in front of any group of unemployed workers anywhere in Quebec or Canada.

Incredibly, seven months before he was elected, this member signed a petition calling for the waiting period to be eliminated. As mayor of La Pocatière, he was in favour of eliminating the waiting period; during his campaign, he was in favour of eliminating it; but once he got here, he became a yes-man, just like his fellow yes-men, the token Quebeckers.

Will this Prime Minister take a stand and give Quebec something else?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc asked for an additional two weeks of benefits for the unemployed, and our government gave them an additional five weeks of benefits, as well as measures for long-tenured workers.

The Bloc voted against that, because what it really wants is for the federal government never to do anything. That is the real position of a separatist party, but the people of Quebec want a government that acts on behalf of Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government maintains that employment insurance premiums are set by an independent body. However, in the budget, it clearly announces that it will rake in a $19.2 billion surplus between 2011 and 2015.

How can the government claim that it does not have control over the employment insurance fund when it is already announcing that the fund will generate inordinate surpluses?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, when we presented measures to help the unemployed, I noticed that the Bloc voted against every single one of them. I also want to share this new reality with the Bloc MPs. When we presented our economic action plan, they voted against it. We just got our report card from Statistics Canada.

For the fifth month in a row, Canada's gross domestic product has increased by 0.6%. That means we made the right decisions, which they voted against.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not have the courage to answer the question.

The reality is that the employment insurance fund is controlled by the government. Like the Liberals before them, the government will continue to set overly high premiums and try to pay out the least amount of benefits possible in order to generate huge surpluses for paying down the deficit.

Why does the government not acknowledge that, just like the Liberals, it will continue to gouge the unemployed?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, when we froze premiums for two years at $1.73 per $100 of earnings, the Bloc again stood up and voted against that measure at a time when the unemployed needed it the most: during the global economic crisis.

I want to remind the hon. member that if we had accepted the Bloc's proposal, a person receiving the full amount of employment insurance would have received $914. Our additional five weeks gave $2,285 to the unemployed, or $1,371 more than what the Bloc proposed.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister why he refused to pay back the $60 billion the Liberals stole from the employment insurance fund. He said he could not change history; he could not change the past.

The government has apologized for residential schools. It has compensated Chinese immigrants for the head tax. But when the time comes to atone for a blatant theft, why is he abandoning the unemployed?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that money was stolen from the EI fund 10 years ago by another government. That $60 billion is gone; that is the sad reality. We have established a system that will prevent anything like that from ever happening again, which is to the benefit of unemployed Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is happening here simply is not right. Here is what the former EI fund chief actuary, Mr. Michel Bédard, had to say, “The Budget Implementation Act...is now formally and finally wiping out the accumulated EI surpluses worth $57.2 billion”, $7 billion of that under the Conservative government.

The Prime Minister told the House that “every dollar in EI premiums should be used for the benefit of workers”. Why is the Prime Minister legalizing this Liberal theft?