Lynne Yelich

[November 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the questions asked by the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche today because it gives me the opportunity to stand in this House once again and tell Canadians about the good things that this government has done for our economy, our job market and training for workers.

I must start off by pointing out that the hon. member was in government for almost a decade and a half, most of that time in a majority situation, and his party did nothing for seasonal workers. His party did nothing but overcharge the workers with EI and misspent those dollars on boondoggles, sponsorships and scandals. It nothing for the seasonal workers.

He is now asking us to support a pilot project that his government did not implement during its 13 years in power. He does it with a tone of righteous indignation even though it was his party that ignored these same workers for 13 years. Perhaps he has forgotten, but Canadians have not.

This government is proud of its record. We are proud of the supports we provided for the working family that he speaks so passionately about. We are proud to say that this is the government which is providing ever growing opportunities for all Canadians to participate and succeed in Canada's growing economy.

The economy is booming. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have created winning conditions so that more jobs, better wages, and a brighter future can be delivered to all Canadians.

Under the leadership of this government, the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in more than 30 years, hitting 5.8% in October. Employment rates are at record highs and thousands of jobs are being created every day across this country. In fact, 500,000 new jobs have been created since this government was elected almost two years ago, more than 200,000 new jobs this year alone.

There is no better evidence of our robust labour market than the remarkable decrease in the number of long term unemployed. Ten years ago, under his previous Liberal government, 13.5% of all unemployed people remained unemployed for more than a year.

Today, under the leadership of this government, that figure stands at a low of 4.4%. We have made it clear our intention to consider improvements to EI financing since we formed the government. The Speech from the Throne confirms that we will now be taking measures to improve the governance and management of the EI account.

There are currently an array of 19 EI bills at some stage of the legislative process. They total well over $11 billion in new annual spending which would bankrupt the employment insurance program. The Liberals are supporting all of them. That is the Liberal approach to EI reform.

Bankrupting the EI program at the request of the Liberal Party will not be our approach to employment insurance reform.

[November 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have her answer. There is more good news. Our government is providing funds to participating provinces and territories for employment programming through the targeted initiative for older workers, a $70 million initiative aimed at helping unemployed older workers in sectors such as forestry and fishing and those living in smaller communities affected by downsizing or closures and ongoing high unemployment.

Let us not let the member tell the House that I am not answering her question. That is the answer.

Of this amount, over $19 million went to her beautiful province of Quebec for projects, 11 of which have been announced so far. Two of these projects will help workers from the hon. member's own riding and represent a joint investment by the Governments of Canada and Quebec. The hon. member did say earlier that she wanted us to work with Quebec. This is it. This is where we have invested. The Governments of Canada and Quebec, with over $1.7 million into--

[November 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member across the aisle knows, the Prime Minister promised in the Speech from the Throne that we were committed to improving the governance and the management of the employment insurance account.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my Liberal colleagues for their support in getting that throne speech passed so quickly through this House.

Before we discuss anything tonight, it is important that we understand Canada's current employment situation, as these facts are integral to any discussion of the EI program.

Since this government was elected almost two years ago, we have seen an astonishing number of new jobs being created, more than 500,000 to be exact. This year's numbers are looking equally good, with almost 200,000 new jobs being created this year alone. More than one-third, or better than 88,000, of those jobs have been created in the province of Quebec.

In addition, the average hourly wage rose by 2.4% in the first quarter of this year alone and the unemployment rate has dropped to the lowest point in 33 years at 5.8%. This is good news. It goes to shows that the hard work the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have done to help manage our economy is beginning to pay dividends.

Thankfully, we have a labour market where more Canadians are working than ever before and the demand for labour is strong. Opportunities for work are abundant, especially among the skilled trades that are currently experiencing labour shortages across the country.

We have made clear our intention to consider improvements to the EI financing since we formed the government. The Speech from the Throne confirms that we will now be taking measures to improve the governance and the management of the employment insurance account.

That being said, we are concerned about unemployed Canadians who are having difficulty adjusting to the changes in the local labour markets.

The opposition's approach is to propose a pile of unsustainable EI bills: $3.7 million for one bill; $1.1 billion for another; $1.4 billion for yet another. There are 16 more EI bills to come, 9 of which are too complicated to cost, but it is fair to say that they will not be free. There is another $4.7 billion for the remaining seven bills. The cost of these bills would be astronomical and the opposition has supported them all without giving careful study to any of them.

Those bills represent more than $11 billion in new annual spending for the EI account, which would put this program into a deficit within a year and bankrupt this very vital national program.

Canadians are looking to this government to act responsibly and carefully. They want a government that will ensure that the long term viability of the EI system will be protected from this patchwork of proposals made by the opposition, and that is exactly what we are doing.

That is why we are providing financial transfers to the provinces for training through the existing labour market development agreements. The government provides approximately $2 billion per year to the provinces and territories for the EI part II programming to help train unemployed Canadians. Of this funding, almost $600 million goes directly to Quebec. In total, more than 600,000 Canadians are helped each year.

Budget 2007 provided an additional $500 million a year for labour market training, a commitment--

[National Child Day, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Child Day and children and families are a priority of this government. That is why this government has provided all parents with choice in child care by implementing the universal child care benefit. I do not understand why the Liberal leader has said he would take it away.

This government created a new $2,000 child tax credit and provided an additional $250 million to the provinces, which has helped them announce the creation of more than 32,000 spaces.

This government is spending $5.6 billion this year alone on early learning and child care. This is the single largest child care investment in Canadian history, three times more than the previous Liberal government ever spent.

After 13 years of countless broken promises, even the former deputy leader of the Liberal Party, Sheila Copps, had to admit that her government did not create a single child care space.

It is fitting that this year's theme is “The Right to be Active”, because getting active is what this government has done after more than 13 years of Liberal inaction.

[Homelessness, November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our government takes this issue very seriously. We promised in the throne speech that we would actively work with first nations and the Inuit to increase the supply of affordable housing in the north.

This is why we have increased the amount of money in affordable housing more than any government in Canadian history: $1.4 billion for affordable housing, northern housing and housing for aboriginal people living off reserve. Even the Liberal member for Yukon has praised this government for our commitment to affordable housing in the north.

Unlike the previous government, this government is doing more than talking.

[Human Resources and Social Development, November 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, after years of inaction and broken promises by the Liberals, the government acted quickly to provide parents with choice in child care. We are investing more than any government in Canadian history on early learning and child care and three times more than the previous Liberal government.

This includes additional money to the provinces to create child care spaces and the universal child care benefit that goes to each and every child under the age of six. The Liberal leader said he would take it all away.

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for those words. He has brought the debate to where it should be, which is to talk about the integrity of the voting process.

I am as confused as he is about the official opposition. I am wondering if those in Quebec understand it a little more because they can see how easily it can get out of hand. He gave some examples of why. He understands that perhaps if this kind of thing is allowed, it sometimes causes more problems with racial remarks or remarks against groups that really do not deserve it.

I was pleased that the member called upon the Liberals to rethink this so that we could get this legislation through quickly and then solve the real problem on the next issue, which was a clear oversight and has to be resolved.

Could the member tell us why he thinks the party next to him is so against this when in fact it is the proper and right thing to do?

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I actually believe the member does feel that this is a targeted measure. However, as a whole, she and her party are going places that are really unnecessary. This is really about the integrity of democracy. If people are allowed to vote with covered faces, then how do we ensure the integrity of the identifying of voters. This is only about identifying voters.

Those are really good stories about going through airports and being targeted but that is another issue in another debate. This is just about fixing a little glitch in the Elections Act. It has nothing to do with targeting voters or whatever. If we were going there, then we would have a lot of bigger issues. It certainly has nothing to do with that and I am sorry that is what it is being made into.

I cannot imagine people listening to this today and even listening about the religious schools funding and the way the media, as she says, handled it. That issue is with the media and I would quickly take her debate out there and talk to the media. It has done a disservice.

I think she has good intent and really believes what she said but she needs to look at the big picture. This is about voting from coast to coast across Canada. It is about showing identification. We need to fix it. The chief electoral office must have had a reason for asking that it be fixed. It cannot just be put on hold. We need to do it now before it becomes an issue, before voters decide to show up in any sort of disguise at the voters' booths. Those things are not easy to deal with on election night, as I tried to express. What we are trying to do is avoid all these problems.

We just went through an election in Saskatchewan, so we know what it can be like. My daughter had to find two pieces of ID when she was a university student. She had to find a place to vote. It was not easy. She needed the ID.

I think what we are trying to do is prevent a lot of problems on election night and we do not want to make it into a cultural issue or a targeted group issue.

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest, if the member is so confused about why we are doing it, that this is the time to do it before an election so that the people at the polls have to use some discretionary measures to give a ballot.

I believe it was the chief electoral officer who insisted that this be done and it is about the integrity of democracy and of the vote. Therefore, I do not understand why the member would not want to see this go through and be settled.

The Liberals are making this into a cultural or religious issue but it has nothing to do with that. It is asking for visual identification to get a ballot. That is all it is. It was not an issue until the Liberals made it an issue.

However, I am trying to think of all the things that come up on an election night. Perhaps, as the member from the Bloc tried to stress, these kinds of things become an issue on election night when these people do not have a great deal of time to seek out some sort of guidance on this.

If the member is trying to make a religious issue out of this, then perhaps he should go back to the people who he is saying are affected. They have already said to the committee that they are not affected by this legislation and that they would be glad to take off their veils. They are not unhappy about it.

All parties at the procedure and House affairs committee agreed to have this legislation for the integrity of the voting system. Therefore, why not just pass the bill. It does not sound like it will hurt anyone or cause any problems throughout the Muslim communities. This has nothing to do with just religion or culture. It has more to do with showing ID at the polls.

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks. I understand that he was on the procedure and House affairs committee, or had listened to the witnesses. If I understood him correctly, there is no issue with the Muslim women; this is not what it is about. I would like him to reiterate that and tell me then why the Liberals would try to make it into such an issue, if they had agreed at committee that it was not an issue once they heard that the Muslim women themselves are not offended. Could the member assure us that this definitely does not have anything to do with their being Muslim and that it is about voter identification at the polls?