Lynne Yelich

[May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development if the government intended to leave the Rimouski regional Service Canada office without management.

The fact is the Rimouski region is being served better than ever under the new mandate of Service Canada.

Canadians in Rimouski and across the country can access a complete range of government services and benefits in person, by telephone, on line or by regular mail.

Over the last year more than 100 new service points were created across Canada. That means a total of 543 Service Canada centres. Seventy-nine of these are in Quebec. Never before has the presence of the Canadian government been felt in so many regions and communities including throughout Quebec and the member's riding.

The new government has been listening to Canadians who wanted Service Canada to be managed differently. Canadians were looking for better client service and we all wanted to see people helping people.

Listening to Canadians the new government is getting things done. To make Service Canada more efficient and effective in its client service, we moved from administrative and regional centres to making each Service Canada centre a self-sufficient entity responsible for serving Canadians.

In the member's riding there are three managers responsible for serving citizens. Under the former structure there was only one. The member and her constituents will no doubt be relieved to see that we have tripled the resources dedicated to assisting with accessing Government of Canada benefits and programs.

In order to meet the public's needs we have staffed these managers with a large number of citizen service agents in the five Service Canada centres in the Bas-St-Laurent area.

The changes to the roles and responsibilities of Service Canada centre managers are administrative in nature and will in no way jeopardize service or partnerships; in fact, it is quite the opposite. In the member's riding her constituents are already beginning to see ways in which service is improved.

Ninety-three per cent of Canadians now have access to these Service Canada centres. However, we as government believe we can do better than that. So in Quebec we have added 31 mobile sites to the 79 Service Canada centres already in place.

The addition of mobile Service Canada centres is an innovation whose time has come. It is a better use of resources which every taxpayer can appreciate because it offers more access to more people. This is a major and welcome innovation for those communities where it makes more sense for Service Canada to come to the citizens than waiting for the citizens to come to it. As I alluded to earlier, it brings the presence of the Government of Canada into even the most remote parts of Quebec.

Are there changes with the arrival of Service Canada? We have enacted changes that will ensure that Service Canada is a client oriented agency. Canadians want better client service. They want better value for money. They know how to use the Internet and other technologies, but they want reasonable access to service centres and they want and need face to face interaction. That is what Canada's new government has provided.

Canadians, particularly Quebeckers, are practical people. They appreciate that their new government understands them and is listening to them, and we are getting things done.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, recently our government was pleased to support single women and motherhood training program in London. The project will help single mothers in the London community to fully participate in the economic life by increasing the availability of access to education and employment opportunities.

Another example of projects that we support is the Crossing Communities Art Project in Winnipeg which will engage up to 30 aboriginal and visible minority girls and women who have or are at risk of being in conflict with the law. The project offers an art mentorship to help boost confidence and social and economic well-being for these women. They will participate in studio workshops and training sessions twice weekly in order to develop skills in film and video ,as well as more effective interpersonal communication presentation skills.

Our government is also introducing an exciting new funding mechanism, the women's partnership fund. The new funding program will address issues pertaining to women by encouraging organizations and other levels of government to work in partnership supporting projects directly related to assisting women in their daily lives.

[Old Age Security Act, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (residency requirement). I want to thank my hon. colleagues for their contributions on this important issue.

The bill proposes to lower the residency requirement from the current 10 years to three years. For several reasons this proposal is unacceptable for the government and I will outline the reasons.

I want to start my discussion of old age security by stating that Canada's public pension system is widely recognized as one of the best systems in the world and is often duplicated by countries wishing to set up public pension programs of their own.

The old age security, OAS, portion of our pension plan is an integral component of the system. It is of the utmost importance that we show prudence and forethought when proposing sweeping changes the likes of which this bill proposes.

The Government of Canada has a fully functioning public pension system. One part of it pays benefits to Canadians who have paid into the program like the Canada pension plan. Other parts, like the OAS, are not contributory and therefore they are offered to all seniors in this country, as long as they have a minimum 10 years of residency in the country. This does not seem unreasonable.

In fact it is the responsibility of the government and of all Canadians to ensure that the people who built this country are taken care of in their old age. It is for this reason that the length of residence in Canada has been the program's central eligibility criterion since its inception in 1952.

The OAS is not income based or contributory, or based on one's nationality or country of birth; it is simply residency based. This requirement is intended to establish a person's attachment and his or her contribution to Canadian society, the economy and his or her community over his or her lifetime. It is reasonable to expect that a person live in Canada for a minimum period of time before being granted the right to a lifelong public benefit.

Many other countries have functioning public pension systems as well, and the Government of Canada has endeavoured to sign agreements with these other countries. We have done this so that new Canadians from other countries with similar public pension systems have the ability to use time spent in their country of origin and the contributions they have made in their communities to help meet the minimum residency requirement for Canada's old age security program.

The proposals put forward in this bill would require years of renegotiation with some 50 countries, the same as they took years to sign in the first place. Did the member for Brampton West consider this in the drafting of her bill, or was this just an afterthought? Unfortunately the opposition members have continued their trend of proposing changes to programs without fully understanding what the ramifications of these changes would be.

What is most shocking is that this bill has been proposed by a Liberal, a former parliamentary secretary. She should know that not only would the bill cost billions of dollars and put the long term viability of the old age security program in peril, but that it would take years of negotiation with more than 50 foreign governments with whom we have signed agreements.

There are only two options here: the member did not know this, which means she did not do her research and the bill does not deserve to pass on that alone; or she knew and did not care, which means she has put forward this bill for political purposes to score cheap political points.

I note with interest the comments made by the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale when she suggested in the House that the proposals contained in Bill C-362 were required to offer support to new Canadians.

I just want to reiterate the comments made earlier by the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington whom I believe made a very valuable point. It is Canada's new government that put forward the largest increase in settlement funding for new Canadians in the past decade. It was not the Liberals. It was the Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who created the foreign credentials referral office. The Liberals did not do it. In all of their 13 years of majority rule, the Liberals did not do it despite their talk.

I also notice that this particular bill was not proposed when the Liberals were in power. Canadians, and especially new Canadians, know who is getting the job done for immigrant communities, and it is the Prime Minister, not the previous Liberal government.

Canada's new government has looked to support seniors with several initiatives aimed at helping older Canadians, specifically older Canadians who are surviving on small incomes. These were implemented in a responsible manner after careful study of all relevant facts.

These changes include the commitment of $19.5 million for the new horizons for seniors program. We are providing tax relief by allowing pension income splitting for pensioners, providing tax relief by increasing the age credit by $1,000, and increasing the guaranteed income supplement maximum benefit. This initiative alone benefits more than 50,000 seniors. Budget 2007 raised the age for maturing RRSPs and pension plans to 71 from 69.

Bill C-36 is an act which makes several reforms to improve access to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. It expands the compassionate care benefit, making more Canadians eligible to take care of loved ones in their hour of need.

The record of the Conservative government speaks for itself. We have acted to protect the pension program for seniors. We have a lengthy list of accomplishments on this file and we will not abandon our prudence for political gain. Furthermore, we have a record that is unparalleled when it comes to support for new Canadians.

The Liberal record tells another story. The Liberals have proposed a bill here today that would not only put the long term viability of the old age security program into peril but would also require years of renegotiation with more than 50 foreign governments.

The opposition has not done its homework and that is simply unacceptable. The government must and will act responsibly when it comes to protecting the seniors pension programs and the responsible thing to do is oppose the bill.

[Human Resources and Social Development, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in choice in child care. We also are investing $5.6 billion per year in child care.

However, why is that party supporting Bill C-303, a private member's bill that is against funding to the provinces? That is the question.

[Status of Women, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about this government's commitment to women.

We are putting in over $6 million to combat the sexual exploitation and trafficking of children. Our government is helping protect women against cervical cancer by investing $300 million for immunization. As well, we are increasing funding to Status of Women Canada, with an additional $10 million, bringing its budget to the highest ever.

This is concrete action and we are delivering it for Canadian women.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, can I please finish?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to discuss Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act. I would like to thank hon. colleagues from all parties for their contributions on the bill. All of the opinions put forward on the bill are valuable and provide great input into possible reforms to the EI program.

From the outset, let me state that this government supports the principles behind the creation of a separate EI account. I see other proposals put forward in this bill as well. I note the opposition has proposed several program changes during the course of this Parliament, often without supporting evidence for clear program objectives.

It is important to get these things right. Canadians depend on us and particularly their new government to ensure that the EI system remains a system that is effective, sustainable and reflects their needs.

There is a reason we need to have this debate today. The reason is simple: Liberal mismanagement. The previous Liberal government allowed over a period of 10 years a $51 billion surplus to accumulate in what many in the House have called the EI account.

During a study of a previous incarnation of this bill, Bill C-280, during the last Parliament the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock stated during committee study that the Auditor General surely did not foresee that the government would continuously and deliberately overcharge employers and workers and allow a massive surplus to build up, but it did. It allowed the surplus to grow and it became addicted to it.

Liberal mismanagement comes as no surprise. We have seen a billion dollar HRSDC boondoggle under the Liberals' watch. We have seen a $2 million gun registry turn into a $2 billion gun registry. They ran a rule-breaking sponsorship program. Now we have seen the accumulation of $51 billion in workers' and employers' money with no explanation and certainly no apologies. This should come as no surprise to the party of adscam and sponsorgate, but nonetheless, it is no less insulting to every Canadian.

Mr. Speaker--

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about electing senators which I think would help any region and any province. The member went to great lengths to say that this would be unfair to western Canada. In western Canada, if we get to elect a senator I think that would be in our best interest. I am not sure how he comes to the conclusion that this would be bad for the west. We are talking about electing senators.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to explain what he meant by moral equality if elected.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to know how he got on this topic.