Lynne Yelich

[Canada Elections Act, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for the people who are watching this debate I just want to say that they should not get led to believe that Ed Broadbent brought this idea to the House of Commons. This idea goes back to the Reform Party, the party that I supported. One of the fundamental principles of the leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning, was set election dates and Senate reform.

Those NDP members who love to give themselves credit for this had better read their history on it. It also was part of our platform in the last election, as I recall. The New Democrats never put it in their election platform but they are talking today like they had. I just wanted to correct the record.

[Canada Elections Act, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on the member's concern about the set election date. He suggested May but I think he should take into consideration that May would not be a very good time for most farming communities. Although I do not know about Quebec, I do know that May is smack in the middle of seeding time on the prairies and much field work is being done prior to those weekends. If it is a late Easter, as sometimes it is, or, as he mentioned, Thanksgiving never being on the same weekend, it could cause problems if the election date were set during that time.

As he said, this is not handy either because he might be away closing down cabins while those in the prairie provinces are opening up their cabins in May. May is not really that good for the farming communities but it is also not good because graduations and weddings are usually held then, whereas that is never an issue at the end of October.

I just want to know if the member ever took into consideration farming communities that perhaps would not be in favour of a May election date.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is costing the potash mines in my riding a lot of money. A lot of jobs are counting on us to put this rail back on its tracks.

I would have assumed that the NDP members would have agreed with us because I am speaking about Saskatchewan, which is where their counterparts are located, and they are very concerned about this. I would be ashamed if I were them. They should be calling their counterparts in Saskatchewan to find out that potash is not moving. My riding has five potash mines, plus we are the wheat and barley capital. Saskatchewan is suffering because of this rail strike. We are losing millions of dollars a day, at least on demurrage costs, and by not being able to get our grain to the port. We are also losing markets.

I think it is time to close this debate down.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, how important does the member think it is to pay down the national debt and does he agree with the tax back guarantee that the minister has decided to legislate?

Does he agree that the national debt should be paid down? Does he agree that Quebeckers would be quite happy to be a part of the benefits of the tax back legislation and guarantee?

[Persons with Disabilities, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this important motion today. I would like to start by restating my support and the support of Canada's new government for Motion No. 243, which was presented by the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

The proposed study will contribute to Human Resources and Social Development Canada's practice of continuously monitoring and assessing the Canada pension plan to ensure that it meets the needs of Canadians, both today and in the future. I know this study will provide valuable information on the extent to which the Canada pension plan disability program is meeting its objectives. This is important information. That is why I feel quite strongly that this study should be completed as soon as possible, not delayed until November.

It is important to note that later this week parliamentarians also will be considering possible changes to Bill C-278, which deals with another important program for persons with disabilities, EI sickness benefits, and I feel strongly that the Human Resources study of the level of financial support offered by the Canada pension plan disability needs to happen now.

The information to be gleaned from the study of CPP disability should be considered before proceeding to discuss possible changes to EI sickness benefits. All too often in this place hon. members want to act before the facts are in. They want to propose changes to programs before they even know whether there is a problem or not, and the political speeches begin before studies are undertaken. This issue is far too important to play politics with and I feel that every member of the House can agree with that.

This is an important issue, one that deserves to be examined right away. Let me repeat: this is important information and we need it as soon as possible, not in November. There are bills before Parliament that require the information that can be learned from studying this program and these bills will not wait until fall.

I think there is some confusion here as to what the CPP disability program is and what it is supposed to do. Therefore, I think it would be good to have a cursory examination of the program so that we can clear the air on a few important points before we begin to discuss changes in earnest.

It is important that all hon. members and in fact all Canadians understand what this program is about and how it works.

Let me start by saying the CPP disability program is the largest long term disability insurance program in Canada. Currently, some 300,000 Canadians and 90,000 of their dependent children receive about $3.3 billion in payments. The CPP program as a whole is recognized around the world as one of the best public pension systems in the world and this government has acted to make it even better.

The CPP disability program was designed to replace a portion of earnings for those who have to leave the workforce due to a severe and prolonged mental or physical disability. This program was not intended to function as a general needs-based income program. There are other levels of support, offered by all levels of government, that fulfill that role. Its purpose is to provide protection against the loss of employment income and to supplement other disability and family income.

How does it work? There are contributory and medical eligibility requirements for the disability benefit, as laid out in the Canada pension plan. First, applicants must have made CPP contributions in four of the last six years. This requirement of recent contributions to the CPP is designed to address the objective of replacing a portion of employment income.

While the government feels that this issue is worthy of immediate study, that is not to say that the government has not acted to make changes to this program. I am sure all members know that. It is part of Bill C-36, currently under review in the Senate. A proposed amendment seeks to make it easier to qualify for CPP disability benefits for long term CPP contributors, those with 25 or more years of contributions, by requiring contributions in only three of the last six years.

Second, as stipulated in the legislation, only those with a severe and prolonged mental or physical disability are eligible to receive disability benefits. This requirement refers to a disability that prevents an applicant from working regularly at any substantially gainful occupation, not just their most recent jobs.

As we can see from the specific eligibility requirements, not all Canadians with a work-limiting disability will be eligible to receive a benefit. CPP disability is intended for some of our most vulnerable Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity today to address an important and often misunderstood point. I understand from recent comments made in the House that some are under the impression that all applicants for CPP disability benefits are automatically denied and that only through appealing this decision do they eventually receive CPP disability benefits.

This is simply not true and is a perfect example of some of the misunderstandings surrounding this program, misunderstandings that we on this side of the House feel should be examined immediately. If hon. members on the other side of the aisle feel this is true, then they should also want to study this immediately and not shirk their responsibilities by ignoring this issue for another six months.

That being said, each and every application for a CPP disability benefit is reviewed thoroughly and fairly with reference to the legislative requirements and in a timely manner.

Trained CPP disability specialists with a medical background view each applicant's application. They look at their capacity to work, taking into consideration their health status, disability-related limitations, treatments, and personal characteristics such as age, level of education, and work experience. All of these components are extremely important in the decision making process and help ensure a fair decision that is consistent with eligibility criteria.

Clients whose applications are not approved receive telephone calls and personalized letters explaining the reasons for denial. In addition, in cases where an applicant is not satisfied with a decision on their application for CPP disability benefits, there are three separate levels of recourse available. The last two levels are appeals to two independent review tribunals. This generous appeal structure is designed to ensure fairness and accessibility.

In addition, it is important to note that a significant number of CPP disability recipients can also receive benefits from other sources. The CPP disability program is one part of a broad and complex income system for persons with disabilities, a system that includes private long term disability insurance, workers' compensation, employment insurance sickness benefits, and provincial social assistance.

Staff in Service Canada's service delivery network also refer those who are denied a CPP disability benefit to other appropriate programs and supports that may be made available to them. For example, CPP disability applicants are encouraged to apply for a tax credit, called the disability tax credit, or the veterans disability pension if it appears that they may be eligible for one or both of these entitlements. In some cases, Service Canada staff will assist these individuals with their applications.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities may wish to take this overall context of CPP disability programs into account when undertaking its study.

A number of hon. members of this House have indicated that it takes too long to adjudicate applications for CPP disability benefits. In 2005 and 2006, the disability program received more than 60,000 applications. Of those, over 30,000 applicants were granted benefits.

In terms of speed of service, the target is that 75% of decisions will be made within four months of receiving a completed form. As of February 2007, 86% of decisions were made within this timeframe.

Service Canada is exceeding its stated targets. That is indeed something to be proud of and we can feel confident that most vulnerable clients are being well attended to.

I again want to thank the House for the opportunity to speak today. I want to reiterate that it is an important issue that cannot wait until fall to be examined. There is currently legislation before the House and the Senate that would benefit from the knowledge that can be gained from undertaking an examination of the CPP disability, and these bills will not wait until fall. We need answers as soon as possible.

We would be shirking our duty as responsible legislators if we were to allow bills to proceed without having all the evidence in place beforehand. If the opposition really is interested in more than just playing politics with this important issue, then it will want to examine this issue right away and not wait until fall.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a correction to some of the mistruths the member is projecting.

Our new government recognizes autism spectrum disorder. It is an important concern and we are committed to working with our partners, provinces, territories and other stakeholders on this issue.

The federal government supports research on ASD through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. It has invested nearly $50 million since 2000. It is a sponsor of the ASD stakeholder symposium in 2007. These are just a few examples.

The institute is beginning to explore the establishment of a research chair focusing on effective treatment. It has launched a consultative process on the feasibility of developing an ASD surveillance program. It has a dedicated page on the Health Canada website. The Health Policy Branch of Health Canada has been designated as an ASD lead.

The member is quite concerned about what the provinces might do with the money and he specifically mentioned Quebec. He should look at the rest of Canada. His counterparts in Saskatchewan have no respect for any of these issues. We have lost children with autism to Alberta because Saskatchewan would not educate or help the parents and families.

I would suggest that the member maybe look a bit deeper. He will find out that it is Alberta specifically and Ontario that lead in helping parents with an autistic child. Saskatchewan has abandoned these children. Saskatchewan has an NDP government. That province will be one of the beneficiaries of the really good agreement that has just been promoted through budget 2007.

The provincial NDP government in Saskatchewan has just announced its budget and there is nothing in it for farmers and agriculture, which is the backbone of that province. Our health minister could not get Saskatchewan on board with respect to wait times. Our Indian affairs minister could not get the province on board with respect to education for aboriginals.

Why does the member think that I do not like to see some of this money going to Saskatchewan? I want what is fair and what is equitable. However, I want a premier too who will spend it where it is needed.

[Child Care, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position is that Canadians know that their new government is spending more on early learning and child care than any other federal government in history.

We have increased child care transfers to provinces and territories to a total of $1.1 billion. We are listening to the real experts, the parents, who asked for choice in child care. We are delivering it and that party is voting against it.

[Textile Industry, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to comment on today's motion, which calls upon the government to act on Motion No. 164, adopted in the 38th Parliament.

As a brief reminder, it proposed two somewhat ill-defined measures to help Canadian textile and apparel industries. Chief among them was the establishment of an industrial assistance policy and an older worker income support program.

The apparel and textile industries play a significant role in the country's economy, serving as a source of skilled employment in cities and communities primarily located in Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes, British Columbia and Manitoba. These industries, however, are facing continual and far-reaching pressures from an increasingly competitive global market.

As Canadian Apparel Federation executive director Bob Kirke notes his industry faces heavy offshore competition from fashion designers as well as factory workers, remarking “you have to be really good to survive”.

These pressures have made the transformation of the textile and apparel industries from national to globally integrated industries a necessity. There is no sign such challenges will abate in the future. Indeed, the trends suggest an even more competitive global outlook.

The elimination of global textile and apparel import quotas in January 2005, pursuant to Canada's World Trade Organization commitments, resulted in significantly increased competition from low wage countries for Canadian producers.

Although the need to adapt to increased competition is not unique to the apparel and textile industries, or even to the Canadian economy, changes in the global marketplace are nevertheless having a significant impact upon the environment in which both industries have and continue to operate.

What is our government doing? In the face of such challenges, our new government is demonstrating its commitment to the long term viability of both the apparel and textile industries, actively working with them to turn the challenges of today into the opportunities of tomorrow.

To assist the two industries in their efforts to compete effectively and efficiently in the changing global markets, we are working with our U.S. and Mexican counterparts to facilitate the access of textile and apparel companies to world-class inputs. We are reviewing proposals for an outward processing program that may provide new market opportunities for the textile and apparel industries. We are continuing to protect against illegal shipment of imported apparel and textile products. We are working, through the employment insurance program, to continue to meet the needs of workers adjusting to changes in the industry.

We are ensuring, through ongoing support for human resource sector councils, that workers obtain the necessary skills to respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing labour market and identifying and reducing tariffs on imported textile inputs to improve the industry's cost competitiveness.

To underline our commitment to this last point, Canada's new government recently announced the implementation of measures to reduce or eliminate tariffs on a number of textile fabrics used in the apparel industry. These measures will provide apparel producers with up to $4.5 million in annual duty savings.

Canadian Apparel Federation president Elliot Lifson called the announcement “a step in the right direction. The biggest input cost is material so this should encourage manufacturers”.

Such measures are also in line with the goal of “Advantage Canada” to create a Canadian entrepreneurial advantage by encouraging further international trade and investment, while allowing Canadian businesses to do what they do best, invest, expand, and create jobs for hardworking Canadians.

Canada's new government has also demonstrated its continued support of the Canadian apparel and textiles industry program, or CATIP.

Working in partnership with industry associations and other stakeholder organizations, CATIP assists Canadian textile and apparel firms adjust to impacts of globalization through numerous approaches including: industry-wide branding initiatives; support for domestic and international marketing activities such as trade shows, matchmaking events and marketing materials; support for best practices and diagnostic sessions for companies; development of national textiles and apparel portals and e-commerce awareness activities; and, staging of domestic industry conferences.

An additional component of CATIP known as CANtex helps textile companies enhance productivity and reorient production toward higher value-added products for growth markets.

The measures I just outlined clearly demonstrate that our new government is working with both industries to address the challenges of globalization and ensure the continued viability of domestic firms.

We are representing more than the Bloc has ever achieved, or will ever achieve, for the apparel and textile industries. Not only will these measures further boost the competitiveness of these industries, they will ensure continued innovation while making the most out of our key competitive advantages and indepth understanding of niche consumer markets and close proximity to North American consumers.

Canada's new government is confident that by maximizing such competitive advantages we can assist in the renaissance of these important industries. According to Milstein & Co. Consulting a burgeoning renaissance is already underway with a new generation of small clothing manufacturers emerging throughout Canada, stating “The industry will regenerate, there's no doubt about that. It's happening now”.

Additionally, I remind the House of the many measures designed to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit of Canada through the promotion of a more competitive and productive economy.

Accelerating elimination of the federal capital tax, reducing the general corporate income tax and eliminating the corporate surtax will help attract and retain investments in Canada, helping our country respond to the economic challenges of the 21st century.

Before concluding my remarks, I will specifically address the two initiatives referenced in Motion No. 158, namely outward processing and assistance for older workers.

Over the course of the last several months, the Department of Finance along with Industry Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and Foreign Affairs and International Trade have been working with the Canadian Textile Institute and the Canadian Apparel Federation to develop program options for an outward processing program that would reduce or eliminate the customs duty on imported apparel containing Canadian textiles.

Given that approximately $6 billion of apparel is imported into Canada each year, the textile industry anticipates that such a program would provide new market opportunities for the Canadian textile industry, even if Canadian textiles are used only in a small portion of apparel imports.

In the near future, officials are scheduled to complete their consultations and finalize their evaluation of the options. In conducting this evaluation, consideration will be given to such issues as consistency with Canada's World Trade Organization and NAFTA obligations, and ease of administration.

With regard to the call in Motion No. 158 for increased assistance for older workers, Canada's new government recently brought forward two concrete measures in this respect.

First, this past October, we announced $70 million for the targeted initiative for older workers, to help older workers in vulnerable communities remain active and productive participants in the labour market.

Second, just this January, as promised in budget 2006, we announced the appoint of an expert panel to study labour market conditions affecting older workers.

Clearly, as textile and apparel industries compete in the new era of increasingly challenging global trade, Canada's new government is committed to putting in place the right policies to assist them as they seek to transform these challenges into opportunities.

[March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the next election, the Liberals will have a lot to answer for as opposition. They are so desperate to get back into power they completely lost sight of what is important to Canadians. They are really out of touch.

They voted against $45 million to improve physical access to people with disabilities and a record high $5.6 billion for child care and early learning. They voted against $307 million to improve the lives of immigrants and to help them adapt to life in Canada. They voted against $500 million in labour market training for unemployed Canadians not eligible for EI.

They voted against the $30 billion over seven years in social transfers to Quebec and other provinces. They voted against the $10 million to combat elder abuse. They voted against tax cuts to help low income Canadians. They voted against the almost $2 billion in funding for affordable housing and homelessness. They voted against improved access to student loans and graduate scholarships. They voted against money for seniors and the disabled. They voted--

[March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member annoys me when she speaks about Conservatives not being accountable because Canadians are satisfied with our new government and they understand that Conservatives are accountable and are getting the job done, something that the member and her party did not do in the last 13 years.

As troubling as Canadians found the Liberal scandal and culture of entitlement while in government, they are finding the Liberals' current desperation and aimlessness as opposition downright disturbing. It is bad enough that Liberals could not get governing down after 13 years of trying. Now we are seeing that they cannot get opposition down either.

Canadians can see that the Liberals are the only ones who did not see anything wrong with ad scam. Canadians see that the Liberals are trying to hold us to a higher standard of rules and yet they could not pass those same rules and policies that they are expecting us to do. They had that file as well.

Canadians are not impressed with the Liberals' oppose everything at all cost approach. They see that the Liberals have lost touch with the public that they wish to serve. The Liberals want so badly to get back to power as quickly as possible that they will do just about anything.

The member asked about the $20 million cut from the immigration system. Canadians know there was no cut. They know that their government added funding for immigration where their old government did not. They know that we cut in half the right of permanent residence fee that the Liberals created. They know that after the old government froze money for immigrants for a decade, their new government added $307 million in funding for immigrant language training and literacy, programs that help newcomers settle in communities across the country, find doctors, register their kids for school and adapt to their new home.

That is right, there were no cuts to immigration and Canadians know that. They know that their new government is appreciative and it is funding immigration, not like the old government. For 13 years the Liberals did nothing for immigrants other than many empty promises.

Now in opposition, the Liberals are still opposed to new money for immigrants. They voted against every new measure that we made. Immigrants and all Canadians are noticing and they are noticing that the Liberal opposition is opposing a lot of measures that make a difference in their lives. They see that the Liberals are opposed to $2.4 billion in benefits going directly to families who can put money toward their choice in child care. The Liberals voted against it and their leader says that he will take it away from families if he gets power.

Canadians see that the member and her Liberal opposition voted against students. Canadians value education. They welcome our 40% increase in post-secondary education transfer, new graduate scholarships and $500 million for labour market training. Only the Liberals are opposed to that.

Canadians see that the member for Laval and the Liberals are opposed to helping low income Canadians. We created a working income tax benefit that will help 1.2 million Canadians. The member voted against it. The member and her Liberals are trying to take that away. I am not sure if it is in the provinces or the social programs they deliver that the member and the Liberals are against, but she has opposed $39 billion in social transfers over the next seven years. Old habits die hard, I suppose.

Her Liberals cut social transfers for health care, education, child care, seniors and other social spending by $25 billion--