House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 39% of the vote.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns September 14th, 2009
With respect to federal spending in the constituency of Nipissing—Timiskaming, what was the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 2005-2006 up to and including the current fiscal year, itemized according to: (a) the date the money was received in the riding; (b) the dollar amount of the expenditure; (c) the program from which the funding came; (d) the ministry responsible; and (e) the designated recipient?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns September 14th, 2009
With respect to the $ 1 billion Community Adjustment Fund announced in Budget 2009: (a) what economic studies were conducted by the government with respect to the creation of the Community Adjustment Fund; (b) when did these studies begin; c) which stakeholders, organizations, provincial governments and municipal governments were consulted; (d) have any rural groups, organizations, stakeholders been consulted in terms of scope or mandate of this new Fund; (e) have any Aboriginal communities been consulted; (f) what is the planned date for the implementation and distribution of funds for the first year of the Fund; (g) what is the base amount each province will receive; (h) will the territories receive funding from the Fund and, (i) if so, what is the base amount they will receive, (ii) if not, will they receive funding through a different program; (i) which annual population figure will be used for the calculation of the per capita sharing for the remainder of the funds which are to be allocated in annual payments in each of the two years to the provinces; (j) what amount, excluding the base amount, is to be allocated to Ontario based on the calculation of the per capita sharing for the first year; (k) as the funding will be provided through regional development agencies, what amount will be provided to FedNor; (l) what federal ridings will be under the jurisdiction of FedNor regarding the Community Adjustment Fund; (m) what limitations, stipulations or regulations will be attached to the requirements for the provinces to receive and distribute the funds; (n) what, if any, are the specific programs the Fund have already committed to support and in which town or cities are these programs based; and (o) what specific programs will the Fund invest that will help workers, communities and businesses in Northern Ontario position themselves to take advantage of opportunities, as economic growth recovers in Canada and around the world?
Questions on the Order Paper September 14th, 2009
With regards to the measures announced in Budget 2009 concerning assistance for consumers of financial products by enhancing disclosure and improving business practices in respect of credit cards issued by federally regulated financial institutions: (a) which government departments, agencies, government officials and their titles were involved in the consultation process and drafting process in regards to this measure and when did they begin; (b) were there any consultations with any of the Credit Card companies who operate in Canada and, if so, when did these meetings occur and who was present; and (c) which other organisations or stakeholders were involved in the consultation process and with which government officials and when did they occur?
Interparliamentary Delegations June 18th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its visit of the science and technology committee subcommittee on energy and environmental security held in Vienna, Austria and Geneva, Switzerland, April 27 to 30, 2009.
Interparliamentary Delegations June 18th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association respecting its visit of the political committee subcommittee on transatlantic relations held in Zagreb, Croatia, March 25 to 27, 2009.
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario Act June 16th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a real sense of pride in Bill C-309 that has been presented to the House. I look around and see that there is support from three parties but not from one. It is the same party that recommended to the Speaker that this bill not receive a royal recommendation.
As everyone can imagine, I rise today with a sense of pride but also a heavy heart. I listened to what was said by the members of the Conservative Party and, in particular, the member for Kenora. He said this bill is looking to duplicate FedNor. Nothing could be further from the truth. FedNor is a program. Liberals want it to be an agency. Why? So that we could be on equal footing with everyone else and the people of northern Ontario would not be second class citizens. That is all we are asking for.
We are looking at FedNor and saying we have a program, but we want an agency like everyone else. I do not think that is an unfair request. To say that it is a duplicate shows that the member does not understand what this bill is about. I am hoping that he will revisit it and understand what Bill C-309 would do.
The other issue that has come up is the cost of bureaucracy and the extra cost that a FedNor agency would require. Let me explain the difference in bureaucratic or corporate services that are required between a program and an agency.
A separate agency generally requires its own corporate services and communications divisions to provide human resources and public relations support. FedNor already has its own corporate services and communications divisions. If it were turned into a separate agency, creating these divisions would not be an issue. FedNor currently employs 140 civil servants throughout northern Ontario.
Conservatives say a program is just as good. A program is not just as good as an agency. The difference between an agency and a program is that a program is part of Industry Canada, it is buried in it. Whereas, an agency reports to a minister and Parliament. Any change in its mandate has to come through Parliament. If any major change needs to be made or if it has to be eliminated, it has to be voted on by all members of Parliament, not just the minister who decides on a whim to get rid of a program which would really hurt northern Ontario.
When I compare a program and an agency, I wonder why the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is an agency. Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions is an agency. Western Economic Diversification Canada is an agency. Two new agencies were just created. If the government thinks a program is just as good as an agency, why were there not simply two new programs put in place?
There was talk about money going south. We know the CFDCs are administered through FedNor in northern Ontario. There is no change in that. There is no danger of that going anywhere else under an agency. In fact, it will be stronger and better administered.
When I hear these misleading statements coming from the Conservatives, I am hoping they will be able to look at the bill objectively, change their minds, and maybe withdraw their request that the royal recommendation not be given. Really, it is a sleight against all the people in northern Ontario.
In closing, this is not about extra cost. It is not about extra bureaucracy. It is about providing security throughout northern Ontario with regional economic development, something that the people of northern Ontario deserve and should have in the form of an agency.
It is not about fighting about what one area or another should have. It is about being equal right across the country. Right now, the people of northern Ontario are not as equal as everyone else. We feel like second class citizens in our own country and I really do not think that is the Canadian way to live.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks about enhancements. I am glad that he thinks there are enhancements there, but there are still people who are waiting for their cheques. People are waiting for their cheques for longer than two weeks, four weeks, six weeks. Some are even waiting longer than eight weeks. That is where the problem lies.
It is about people who are vulnerable. They need the help right away. It is not at the end, where they get that extra five weeks. The five weeks are appreciated, but they have to get the money upfront. That is where they need it most. The money has to be invested in staff who can process the claims more quickly and get the money out.
Mr. Speaker, I will wrap it up there. However, I want to make the point that there are still 58 different regions across the country that have different ratings. I would like to think that we are all equal Canadians, not different levels of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, on March 3, I rose to ask the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development a question regarding employment insurance. It was regarding the obstacles and delays in receiving cheques.
There are people in my riding who are waiting up to eight weeks to get their employment insurance cheques.
Some people wait up to eight weeks to receive their cheques, and that causes problems. Usually, they expect to receive it within two weeks. That is what they are told to expect.
When we ask Service Canada what is going on, the story is that Service Canada does not have enough resources to process the cheques fast enough. Where are the resources? Why are we not processing those cheques quicker? That is a real problem. Money is not getting to unemployed people to help them pay their rent, buy food for their families and get going again and being able to live their lives to the fullest after the blow of losing their jobs. That is what employment insurance is about. I was asking about the lack of resources at Service Canada which is causing delays in people getting their cheques.
In response, the parliamentary secretary said that employment insurance is designed to respond to regional interests. He gave a long answer describing what one region gets compared to another. The answer did not have anything to do with the question in the first place. I hope the information the parliamentary secretary received from the PMO today will answer the question that I have been asking.
Since I have more time, I want to talk a bit more about the re-announcement on EI. I will save the parliamentary secretary doing it but that is probably what he will talk about. On May 25 the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development re-announced changes to the employment insurance system to help long-tenured workers upgrade their skills to help them find new jobs. That is fine; it was a re-announcement, but it does not help a lot of Canadians who have been left out in the cold.
That is not what my question was about. It was not about reintroducing programs and the five weeks' extension at the end of the period which the government talked about. This was about getting money to individuals when they need it most, which is after the two-week waiting period. It is about getting the money to them when promised. They should not have to wait eight weeks, which causes them to have to borrow money from relatives, from banks, if they can get it, and even causes people to be deprived of the essential resources they rely on to keep their families going.
Trade June 4th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, basically what he is saying it is everybody else's fault. It is never the Conservatives'.
After seeing no leadership and no action from the Conservative government, Canadian cities like Halton Hills are taking matters into their own hands. They are now shutting out suppliers from countries like the U.S. that restrict Canadian manufacturers. A similar resolution will go before the Federation of Canadian Municipalities this Saturday. We are spiralling toward a trade war with our largest trading partner.
When will the Conservative government show some leadership, secure real access to the U.S. market and protect Canadian jobs?
Trade June 4th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, trade protectionism is never a good strategy, especially in the middle of a recession. Canadian firms are losing out on billions of dollars worth of bids in an increasingly protectionist United States due to buy American policies. Individual U.S. states are discriminating against Canadian companies in favour of local suppliers.
How can Canadians trust the Conservative government to negotiate any deal of substance with the U.S., given its abysmal track record on trade issues, especially on softwood lumber?