Lynne Yelich

[March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's party has been mismanaging public funds for years. While the Liberals chose to spend taxpayers' dollars on administration and bureaucracy, we are delivering even more programming dollars to women in their communities.

An independent evaluation showed that it cost 31¢ to deliver $1 under the women's program. That is unacceptable. By streamlining the agency and putting application forms online, we were able to redirect $5 million to the women's program. The reality is that we all do not live in major urban centres and this government recognizes that. By putting the application form on the website, we reach women in rural and northern communities.

On this side of the House, unlike the Liberals, we do not separate the women off and we do not hold all boys policy weekends. All ministers and all Conservative caucus members will continue to work together to help Canadian women and their families.

We have taken women's issues very seriously. Protecting women in violent--

[March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to respond to the member for Don Valley East. I am, in fact, a little surprised that she would want to talk about the Status of Women in light of her government's failure to adequately address funding issues at the agency.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women delivered what no previous minister in the same portfolio could, more money for women. Last year, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women asked the minister for a response to a report on funding for women's organizations. That report, “Increasing Funding to Equality-Seeking Organizations”, called on the government to increase funding by 25%.

The previous government had over a decade to affect change in the Status of Women agency and it did nothing. Canada's new government is taking a new approach. We will not be satisfied with the status quo approach taken by the Liberals. We recognize that not all women experience equality. We see how the lives of women, children and families can be improved.

It was this government that took action. It was Canada's new government that listened to women and listened to Canadian families.

Earlier this month, to mark International Women's Day, the minister announced an increase of $5 million to the women's program at Status of Women. That announcement increased the budget of the program by 42%. In fact, Canada's new government added an additional $5 million to Status of Women in this year's budget for a total of $10 million. That is $10 million of new money that will directly benefit women in their communities.

This government's overall record on helping women, children and families has been second to none. In a little over a year we have introduced the universal child care benefit to help women and their families in their homes. We implemented hospital wait time guarantees for prenatal aboriginal women. We expanded eligibility for compassionate caregivers, most of whom are women. This government introduced pension splitting for senior citizens, targeted tax cuts like the GST, the textbook credit, and a credit for families with children involved in physical activities.

We introduced real change, real ideas, and real policies that are making a difference in the lives of Canadian women.

The member for Don Valley East stood in the House and said that the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India depends on federal funding to do its important work. She asked if the minister would guarantee that this organization's funding would not be cut. The minister's office has checked into this, and according to officials at Status of Women Canada there has been no application from this organization this year.

The member also mentioned the National Association of Women and the Law. I am sure that if the hon. member would like more information on these two organizations, the minister's office would be more than happy to investigate.

In the meantime, I would implore the member to actually look at the facts, read the budget, and recognize that this government is working to improve the lives of women, children and their families. We are not just talking about it.

[March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I say shame on that member. Canadians find it a little funny to see the Liberals trying to take the early years study, the data of which was all collected during their time in government, and pass it off as criticism of this government. The study was released less than a week after the budget. It does not take into account the $5.6 billion we are investing in child care choice. The study is nothing less than an indictment of the Liberal record.

Canadians are happy to see that their new government is nothing like the old. We have come to Canadians with a plan. We have outlined the costs. We are delivering what families have asked for.

We will continue to deliver unprecedented benefits directly to parents. We will continue to support them with tax benefits that recognize child care expenses. We will continue to support parents and we will continue to put more money in their pockets. We will continue to stand up for parents. We will not--

[March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am here to remind the member and the House of the great progress that this new government is making on choice in child care and, particularly, on child care spaces.

The Canadians I talk to find it absurd to hear the Liberals taking such an interest in child care spaces now that they sit on the opposition benches. They wonder where all that interest was when the Liberals were in government. They know that the waiting lists, to which the member referred in his initial question, did not begin on January 23, 2006. They find it absurd that for a party that claims it is all about spaces, the Liberals, according to their own former deputy leader, failed to create a single space in 13 years. They also find it absurd that the Liberals, who were so inept at government, are no better as opposition.

Canadians read our election platform. They know our pledge was to begin delivering child care spaces in the upcoming fiscal year. Canadians also read budget 2006 where they saw the same commitment. They are not about to be duped by a Liberal opposition that is desperate, lacking in focus and scrambling for some credibility.

I suspect that Canadians will also find the member's question a little absurd as well. Apart from the fact that the member's spin and misinformation was corrected by the minister back in February, Canadians read budget 2007 which came out between the exchange and now. They know that the budget is delivering child care spaces, now that our pledge is coming due.

In fact, if the member took a minute to read the budget, he might be a little embarrassed to see just how much we are delivering for Canadian families. The Liberals should read the budget but, because they have not, permit me to tell the member what Canadians already know. Their new government is delivering where the old one did not. We are putting $1.1 billion in transfers to the provinces and territories for child care and child care spaces.

Already, in the week that followed the budget, provinces announced in their own budgets that they will be taking the money and using it as it was intended. There have been 17,000 new spaces announced for the upcoming year so far.

While the member and his Liberals would like to take away from the headway that we are making on child care spaces, Canadians will have none of it. They see past the Liberals' desperation. They see their new government getting things done for them. They see us, the new government, delivering as promised.

Canadians see their new government delivering over $2 billion a year for universal child care that goes directly to families to put toward choice in child care. That is twice the entire Liberal plan but the Liberal leader said he will take it away.

Canadians see us putting $695 million toward a child care expense deduction. The Liberals just voted to take it away. Canadians see us creating a new $1.5 billion child tax credit that, like the universal child care benefit, will go directly into their pockets. The Liberals just voted to take that away.

Canadians see their new government putting more money than any government in Canadian history into early learning and child care; over $5.6 billion in direct payments, transfers and tax measures. The Liberals want to take all of that away.

We believe in Canadian parents who asked for choice in child care. Canadian families know which party in the House is standing up for them.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I first would like to know if the member has any evidence on the accusations he made about foreign workers and their problems, because in committee right now we are studying employability, and just the other day one of his colleagues in the NDP actually asked witnesses who were present about that particular circumstance. Perhaps his colleague could inform the member that professional engineers quite like our foreign credential recognition referral agency.

Now that we know he reads the budget page by page, maybe he could confer with his colleague on some of the issues that she has seen unfolding at our committee meetings.

[March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not even believe that. I am sorry the Liberals are troubled by the end of the culture of entitlement. I am sorry they cannot see the corruption Canadians found in their old summer replacement program. I am sorry they are finding it so hard to be in opposition without this remnant of pork barrel politics that keeps their instincts sharp.

For the rest of Canadians, I am pleased to say that we have delivered what they want. The same amount of funding for the non-profit sector is there. We understand and value the work of non-profit employers that rarely have access to other sources of funding and consistently create high quality jobs.

Canadians know and have pointed out that public and private sector employers have access to other sources of funding. Students are enjoying Canada's strong labour market. Opportunity is already there.

For those who face barriers, Canada summer jobs benefits students in communities across the country, especially remote and rural communities and those communities experiencing high unemployment and high crime rates. Canada summer jobs is there for students with disabilities, aboriginal students and others who need it.

[March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when the member talks about what Canadians want and what the Conservatives have not delivered, I would like to tell him what Canadians saw in a government that was different for over 13 years. It was different from their values and different from themselves. For 13 years they saw Liberals growing increasingly old, tired and corrupt.

Canadians had enough. They were sickened when watching the news each night to learn how Liberals illicitly passed brown envelopes stuffed with money to their friends and Liberal insiders. They certainly were not about to go along with a Liberal scheme to institutionalize their culture of entitlement to form a summer jobs program.

Canadians looked for someone who would stand up to the Liberals. They wanted a government that would stand up for them. They wanted a government that reflected their concerns and values, so they chose the Conservatives to form their new government.

One of our first priorities was restoring public confidence in the government. This was done by passing anti-corruption legislation in the form of the Federal Accountability Act, although Canadians would be disappointed with any government that thinks the work of cleaning up after the Liberals ends there.

Canadians wanted the government to clean up the things they knew were wrong with the summer career placement program. Canada Summer Jobs does just that.

Canada Summer Jobs is a new initiative that Canadians are finding better reflects who they are and what they want to see in the student job program. It preserves 100% of the funding, $77.3 million, that went to the non-profit sector under the previous program. It puts an end to subsidies for big businesses that would be creating those positions anyway. Most importantly, it gets rid of the Liberal culture of entitlement by making decisions more transparent and more accountable.

Canadians want their government to support not for profit organizations that deliver community swim programs, summer camps and services at local galleries and museums. We understand that and we listened. That is why we preserved 100% funding for not for profit organizations.

Canadians appreciate that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have created a strong economy, with 30 year lows in unemployment, but they also understand that some regions are still struggling and some Canadians face barriers to accessing jobs.

So does their government. We have listened to Canadians, which is why we put resources where they are most needed. We are focusing resources on students who live in areas of higher unemployment and small urban centres with areas of high crime and on young people with disabilities, members of visible minorities and aboriginal students.

Canada Summer Jobs bases decisions on objective criteria: jobs that could not otherwise be created; students who would not otherwise find work as a result of where they live or the barriers they face; and high quality, career related job experiences.

Under the Liberals, over a quarter of a million dollars went to Safeway. More than that still went to Wal-Mart. Canadians do not believe these multinational companies needed a wage subsidy. These companies, along with several others, volunteered in a departmental survey that they would be hiring students in any event.

Taking a look at the criteria that are considered, it is worth noting what is not considered. No longer is the process dominated by the input of MPs. Canadians are tired of pork-barrel politics and they are tired of hearing things like how the colleague of the member for Davenport, the member for Brampton—Springdale, secured almost $25,000 for the Ford plant in her riding. They are tired of being asked to pretend that the over $20,000 she approved for Bacardi produced a meaningful work experience.

Canadians want value for their money and they want valuable experience for students. Their new government is investing almost $86 million in Canada Summer Jobs.

Transparency and accountability are key to Canada summer jobs. I know this will seem foreign to the member, but employers will be assessed--

[March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I said when the member first asked her question, and as I mentioned again today, the former minister's expenses were all within Treasury Board guidelines. Canadians are satisfied even if the member is not. Canadians see that the member's strategy and motives here are transparent even if her party's record was not.

This is a strategy to deflect attention from that lamentable record. It is to deflect criticism from: the $1 billion boondoggle; Shawinigate; problems with the transition jobs fund; the sponsorship scandal and Groupe Action, investigations into the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party and brown envelopes stuffed with cash; more than half a dozen bureaucrats removed from their jobs following an investigation into these projects; shuffling Alfonso Gagliano off to Denmark; federal job training grants for payments to the Liberal Party; Denise Tremblay's huge travel expenses on the Veterans Affairs board while the Liberals underfunded veterans; fake invoices for the flag flap; Frulla's renovations; Dingwall's expenses as head of the Mint; the secret national unity fund; and the George Radwanski affair.

Is the member ready to defend even--

[March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know I am not going to have enough time for everything I would like to say. However, Canadians will no doubt be in awe that a member of the Liberal caucus would rise in the House to cast stones in a debate on the ethical use of public funds.

Over the past 13 months, the new government has been restoring the faith of Quebeckers and the faith of all Canadians, which the Liberals broke over the past 13 years. Quebeckers and Canadians are relieved to have a government that respects them. For the member to think that they have already forgotten her and her party's arrogant abuse of taxpayers' money is completely wishful thinking.

Canadians have not forgotten the $1 billion boondoggle. Canadians have not forgotten Shawinigate. They have not forgotten Auberge Grand-Mère. Canadians have not forgotten Jean Brault, Alfonso Gagliano, or all those brown envelopes stuffed with cash being exchanged at Restaurant Frank, and certainly neither have Quebeckers.

This is the Liberals' legacy for HRSDC. Each of these scandals shows that Liberals did with HRSDC what they will do if they are ever in charge again. The corruption was on their watch. The scandals were on their watch. The culture of entitlement was on their watch.

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine's Liberal Party orchestrated one of the greatest scandals in Canadian history. Canadians grew tired of it. After 13 years of being treated with contempt by the Liberals, Canadians went to the polls and asked us to govern. They asked the Conservatives to form the government.

We are rewarding their decision by bringing them good and accountable government. The former minister's expenses met Treasury Board guidelines. Can the member say the same for ad scam?

I must say that the minister the member is talking about replaced five Liberal ministers. Canadians will not be duped by the member into comparisons of us with the Liberals' rotten apples, but if the member prefers Canadians to look only at the former minister's expenses and compare them to the spending of Liberal HRSDC ministers, she had better be careful about what she wishes for.

Measured over the same period of one year, HRSDC ministers' spending under the Liberals was 7.5 times more than the former minister's. The Liberals spent approximately $247,000, while the former minister spent approximately $32,000.

With only a fraction of the former minister's portfolio, the Liberal social development minister spent about $62,000 before Canadians retired his number. The Liberal housing minister spent over $69,000. These ministers each spent twice as much as the former minister over the same period of time.

What do they have to show for it but a litany of broken promises, a record of scandals and 13 years of corruption?

If Canadians were asked to compare expenses of former Liberal ministers and their staff in one year to what this minister spent for one year, they would see that Liberals cost them 96 times more, and the Liberals did not have 96 ministers in their cabinet.

It may also be instructive to compare the former minister's expenses to those of the Leader of the Opposition, whom that member supported for the leadership of the Liberals. Documents show that her candidate for leader of the Liberal Party, the person she puts forward as her choice to set an example for the Liberals, who want so badly to form the government again, opted to lodge at a hotel just blocks away from his residence in Montreal when Canada hosted a Kyoto conference. The cost to taxpayers of his decision not to walk a few blocks was over $5,500. His decision to drive to Montreal and keep a chauffeur in the city was over $14,000.

By whatever brush the member wants to use, she cannot and will not be able to whitewash the Liberals' broken promises, record of scandals and 13 years of corruption that easily.

[The Budget, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the finance minister for another excellent budget, a budget that delivers for hard-working Canadian families, a budget that delivers on our commitment to the environment and a budget that delivers on our commitment to restore fiscal balance to the federation.

Could the minister please share with the House how this budget delivers on our commitments to the good, hard-working, overtaxed people of Saskatchewan?