Alexandra Mendes

[Service Canada, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleagues from Toronto Centre, Sudbury and Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher for having supported and improved my motion to offer full passport services at all Service Canada offices.

We know that this issue affects every riding in every corner of our great country. It is becoming more and more important to have more accessible regional passport offices.

This motion and this debate have demonstrated a clear and present reality: Canadians are not getting equitable service when it comes to obtaining a travel document that has become a basic necessity.

Notwithstanding the lack of political will as displayed by the Conservative government, what this motion suggests is that we use to its fullest potential a department that was meant to provide citizens with a one-stop shop for all federally regulated services.

To create confusion, the members opposite have used misleading information and have tried to cast doubt on the reliability of Service Canada's regional offices. Allow me to illustrate what I mean by “mislead the House”.

During the first hour of debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that:

—at $87, a Canadian passport is one of the cheapest in all the developed countries. In current Canadian dollars, the American passport costs $127, an Irish passport costs $128, a British passport costs $130, and a French passport costs $143.

The parliamentary secretary's math was correct, but he forgot one important fact that alters the value of these numbers.

Yes, as the parliamentary secretary was trying to prove or highlight, these foreign passports seem more expensive. However, all these passports are valid for 10 years, unlike our Canadian passport which is only good for 5 years.

The hon. member across the way seems to have neglected to mention this very important fact when he sought to prove that a Canadian passport cannot go up in price under any circumstances. Once again, the arbitrary facts coming from that side of the floor just serve to distort our debate.

The main concern the Conservative members keep raising is the cost of opening these regional offices. The government keeps saying that Passport Canada does not have the funds to set up these additional regional offices and to train staff, because Passport Canada operates on a cost recovery basis. It gets none of its money from the federal government.

Once again, this shows us that the present government has no political will. Those are mere excuses.

In 2007-08, the government offered $55 million in one-time funding to help the Passport Office modernize its technology, meet demand, and comply with the new international security standards. Why could it not provide similar access to funding to help offset the costs incurred by Service Canada to integrate the issuing of passports with its present mission?

I remind the House that much of the infrastructure needed for this complementary service is already in place. The buildings and office space already exist. It only requires minimal training of the staff. Once up and running, these offices would be no different from any of the other current passport offices and they would work on a cost recovery basis. Like any good business model, if the demand is not great enough in a particular region, then and only then should Passport Canada look at different delivery services.

But the government has again tried to hide behind disinformation. The parliamentary secretary went on to say:

—there is a tremendous difference between receiving agent services and passport office services.

Passport Canada staff receive specialized training in handling and examining a wide range of documents. This includes birth certificates, evidence of citizenship and court orders.

Has that member ever gone to a Service Canada counter? Does the member know that, every day, Service Canada staff verify and authorize birth certificates, evidence of citizenship, court orders, and many other official documents?

In addition to this disinformation and the lack of government support, the parliamentary secretary went on to ask, “Where would we get the trained staff for the myriad of locations?”

I realize that they would require additional training, but these front-line workers are already well positioned and experienced in dealing with confidential and time-sensitive documents. I urge the House to support this motion and bring Canada the regional equilibrium currently lacking in passport issuing facilities.

[Employment Insurance, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister just does not want to understand. A person who is ineligible for employment insurance is very likely to need financial assistance until a new job becomes available. Applications for social assistance are on the rise and the provinces will have to shoulder the growing costs of social programs.

Can the minister accept the idea that new eligibility criteria for employment insurance would also help the provinces face the current crisis?

[Employment Insurance, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the number of people unemployed is rising, eligibility criteria remain the same and more and more families find themselves in a very precarious financial situation.

Does the minister realize that her refusal to adopt a single eligibility criterion for all of Canada means that an increasing number of individuals will have to rely on social assistance?

[The Economy, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister really does not understand the question. It will take more than empty rhetoric to deal with a crisis as serious as the one we are going through.

QIT Fer et Titane, a company that the Sorel region is heavily dependent on, has just announced that 1,800 jobs will be suspended on July 12. No matter what the final outcome is—layoffs, dismissals, bankruptcy—this is the beginning of a very difficult period for the whole region.

Does the government finally understand that it must take real measures to support the industries our communities are built on?

[The Economy, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has just released a scathing report on our country's economic situation. The crisis is not going to go away as quickly as the Conservatives claim in their hands-off policy. Thousands of jobs continue to disappear across Canada. The situation in Quebec is disastrous. Rio Tinto Alcan has laid off 220 workers, 600 jobs have been lost at Transcontinental, and more than 1,700 have been lost at Bombardier.

When will this government start governing?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Sherbrooke on introducing this motion, which calls for support for non-profit bodies. It is crucial to reinstate funding for these bodies, as they play a pivotal role in economic development in Quebec.

Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006, funding for non-profit organizations and for CED in general has decreased steadily. Generally, that means that economic development is not a priority for this government. At times of economic difficulty such as the period we are going through at present, CED should be the main engine of economic development in the regions of Quebec. CED should be ready to invest heavily in non-profit organizations that help small and medium-sized enterprises develop.

Since 2005, when the budget for CED was $444 million, the agency's funding has decreased by 45%. This is a huge reduction for a department whose mandate is economic development.

Another sign that this department is not high on the government's priority list is the number of applications for grants or financial assistance received. In 2006-07, 1,179 applications were received. Because of changes to the eligibility criteria for applicants, the number was down to 596 in 2007-08. In 2006-07, 235 applications were denied. In 2007-08, 223 were denied. But what stands out is that the number of applications that were approved went from 944 to 373. There was a significant decrease in the rate of approval of applications for financial assistance and grants, and it shows the dramatic change this government made in managing Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions.

Obviously, there is the whole issue of eligibility criteria for non-profit organizations. The government has announced that funding will be reinstated for the next two years, but as my colleague for Sherbrooke said, it has not made any change to the eligibility criteria for these programs, which means that 75% of the non-profit organizations in Quebec still will not have access to this funding.

This proves once again that, in the eyes of the Conservatives, the role of the government is not at all to support and to help communities for them to develop and above all to stabilize in a period of economic crisis.

In my view, one glaring number is quite telling. Their success rate in implementing their own programs is barely 4%. The funds barely get to those who need them and this causes a great deal of problems for our regions.

The other evidence, as it were, of the lack of interest or lack of conviction of this government for the economic development agencies is the reduction of these departments in October 2008. They became ministries instead of being full-fledged departments as they were before. To conclude, I would like to mention that subsidies coming from CED, for Quebec, were reduced by $75 million.

I will obviously support the motion tabled by my colleague from Sherbrooke. I hope that the government will take into account the need to give the agency what it needs in order to properly support the regions of Quebec.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, April 20th, 2009]

With regard to the $212 million dedicated to the Champlain Bridge, in the Montreal region, in Budget 2009: (a) does the government have a long term plan to spend the money, (i) if so, what is the full breakdown per year for the dispersal of funding and to what projects on the bridge they are being spent with a timeline for completion, (ii) if no, does the government intend to consult with local municipalities being directly affected by the deteriorating condition and safety concerns of the bridge while developing a comprehensive rehabilitation plan; (b) is the money slated to extend the life expectancy of the bridge and, if so, by how long; (c) will the money be spent on structural rehabilitation repairs such as the reconstruction of major support devises or for cosmetic repairs such as paint and resurfacing; (d) how does the government plan to rehabilitate the bridge while allowing normal traffic volume to proceed in both directions, especially during peak hours; and (e) is any component of a light rail system being developed under this funding?

[Forestry Industry, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have abandoned the forestry industry. Since they came to power, $1.6 billion set aside by the former Liberal government for the industry has disappeared because of their grandstanding.

When will the government take action in the interest of the thousands of people who have lost their jobs? When will it do something for the hundreds of communities that are losing their primary industry?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 3rd, 2009]

Regarding requests for financial assistance made to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 financial years, by regional office, how many requests were approved and how many were rejected when submitted for the authorization of (i) the Regional Director, (ii) the General Director for Regional Coordination, (iii) the Vice-President for Operations, (iv) the President, (v) the Minister?

[The Economy, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not seem to take this news very seriously.

Will he have just as glib a reply for the 145 employees at the Norampac plant in Quebec City, which will be closing permanently, as Cascades announced yesterday?

And how will he reassure the 210 workers at wind turbine parts manufacturer GURIT in Magog who are also being laid off?