Michelle Rempel

[February 1st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, as we announced last August and as the minister has talked about in the House, we are gradually reducing the current 120 smaller and more costly EI processing sites to 22 larger, more efficient regional processing sites because we want to improve service. This is also why we are undertaking the automation exercise.

Just to re-emphasize, this is because current paper based processes are cumbersome. Our government is recognizing and taking the leadership we need to improve those services over time. How are we ensuring that we still deliver services while this process is undertaken? We are increasing staff and transitioning staff from part-time to full-time. We are using overtime. We are committed to serving people with regard to EI benefits. We have plans to keep that going in the future. This is something that is a core service provision that is very important to this government.

[February 1st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to address my colleague opposite for, I think, the first time in the House tonight. My colleague spoke about understanding priorities and I am glad he raised that because I am not quite clear on what the Liberal Party understands as priorities.

Our government understands that creating jobs and economic growth and also helping Canadians during their times of need is core to government. That is why we have undertaken numerous measures over the last six years to see that through, measures which my colleagues opposite have opposed several times.

I just want to remind my colleague opposite of some of the positive things that we are doing to help Canadians. First, even though there is a global economic downturn, we have created over 600,000 net new jobs. which is a positive statistic and a positive thing for Canadians.

With regard to some of the other things my colleague has said, we provided 2.6 million self-employed Canadians with access to special EI benefits on a voluntary basis. We improved the work sharing program. We capped EI premiums for 2011. We introduced the wage earner protection program. Those are all tangible measures to help Canadians in times of need because we understand that, yes, there is definitely fragility in our economy right now and we need to help people when they are out of work.

However, we also need to talk about ensuring that we have a service provision. Canadians have given our government a very clear mandate to eliminate the deficit and return to balanced budgets while making our services more effective and efficient. That is what we are trying to do here. We have established a service improvement agenda with short and long-term objectives and we are taking action to ensure that those Canadians in need of EI receive these benefits in a timely manner.

Automation is an important element of our EI service modernization effort. Why is that? Its aim is to alleviate the cumbersome paper based processes and get benefits to eligible people faster no matter where they live, exactly what my colleague opposite is talking about. To get benefits to eligible people is part of this process.

This year, as with other years, we added resources in anticipation of the peak period in December and January. In fact, over the last number of weeks, we have added about 400 employees to our processing efforts and shifted 120 staff from part-time to full-time, as well as substantively increasing our use of overtime. This is to get benefits out to Canadians in need.

Contrary to the claims of my colleague opposite, we are working hard to serve Canadians' needs and ensure that our system is modern and effective well into the future. We are also taking steps to reassign staff from non-core functions within Service Canada to get them out on those front lines to assist with claims processing during peak needs.

In the long run, and this is important, we are confident that we can improve service to Canadians through our three-year modernization initiative.

In summary, we are working hard and we are working hard on behalf of Canadians to improve the services we deliver.

[February 1st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I will re-emphasize the answer that Dr. Dodds gave to our committee. There are no reductions to the monitoring, to the results that Environment Canada needs to provide to meet our obligations to Canadians.

Again, this is one more clear example, beyond myself and the minister saying this repeatedly in the House of Commons, that Environment Canada will continue to monitor ozone in this country.

[February 1st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House in adjournment proceedings talking to my colleague opposite about ozone monitoring.

We will continue to monitor the ozone, and because we were so committed to providing that answer again to my colleague opposite, she had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Karen Dodds, the assistant deputy minister of the science and technology branch within the Department of the Environment, at the environment committee before the Christmas break. The committee heard a large amount of testimony in answer to the questions of my colleague opposite. To reassure her beyond a shadow of a doubt and to re-emphasize the answer we keep giving in the House, the World Ozone and Ultraviolet Data Centre will continue to deliver its world-class services and core services will not be compromised.

There seems to be a bit of confusion here tonight on the part of my colleague opposite about the answer to those questions, so I am going to repeat what Dr. Dodds said in committee in response to the following question by my colleague opposite:

Why have the parliamentary secretary and the minister repeatedly said that there would be no cuts? Who is right?

Dr. Dodds responded:

There are no reductions to the monitoring—to the results—that Environment Canada needs to provide to meet our obligations to Canadians.

How we provide those results is something that we're having discussions inside about how best to use the dollars we have available to us.

This is about getting great science and great results for Canadians and being wise stewards of taxpayers' dollars. This testimony clearly shows that we are committed.

To some of the other questions of my colleague opposite, I will give a few select answers. Will monitoring be maintained in the lower atmosphere, yes or no? Dr. Dodds said yes.

In the interest of my colleague tonight, I would encourage her to read through that transcript because many of those questions were answered. To re-emphasize one more time for the House, we will continue to monitor the ozone.

[The Economy, January 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last week in Switzerland, the Prime Minister highlighted Canada's economic strengths and framed the choices Canada faces as we work to secure long-term prosperity for our citizens.

Our top priority is jobs and economic growth. Canada will make the transformations necessary to sustain economic growth and prosperity now and for the future. We will continue to keep taxes low, to make key investments in science and technology to sustain a competitive economy and to advance our trade linkages. We will make it a national priority to ensure that we have the capacity to export our energy products beyond the United States, specifically to Asia. We will undertake significant reform of our immigration system, balancing our humanitarian obligations with family reunification and with economic and labour force needs.

We will be taking measures in the coming months to ensure the sustainability of our social programs and fiscal position.

Canada's choice will be to seize and to master our future and to be a model of confidence, growth and prosperity in the 21st century.

[The Environment, December 12th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague opposite that, as I have said before, we are proud of our record of monitoring ozone here in Canada and our government intends to continue to monitor the ozone.

[The Environment, December 12th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for her question, because it once again gives me the opportunity to talk about Canada's record in monitoring ozone.

We certainly have a very strong record in this country of participating in world monitoring activities. We understand that this work is very important, and this is why, as I have said several times before in response to my colleague's questions, we will continue to monitor the ozone. It is as simple as that.

We also understand that as a government, we have a responsibility to manage and be wise stewards of taxpayers' dollars, so we look at ways to do that, but also to continue to deliver services that are important. That is what we are doing with the ozone.

As I have said before, we will continue to monitor it.

[The Environment, December 12th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said already today, we are very encouraged by the talks that happened in Durban over the weekend. We have seen an international will to move forward and put together an agreement that sees all major emitters around the table. The Kyoto protocol does not cover this. We are very excited about this positive development.

Instead of raising these points, I would ask my colleague opposite to work with the government in its sector-by-sector regulatory approach and not vote against our important budgetary measures to address climate change adaptation and regulation.

[The Environment, December 12th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague opposite brought up the point about our oil sands monitoring framework, which does provide credible science.

When we were in committee earlier this year and she asked the Environment Commissioner about this plan, the Environment Commissioner said:

What I would say is there is now an ambitious plan, a significantly important plan for the federal government to put in place a monitoring system.

Instead of this empty rhetoric, I ask my colleague to get on board with real science and a real plan.

[The Environment, December 12th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about sabotaging and killing jobs, I am not sure if my colleagues' opposite trip to Washington to lobby against our energy sector was productive in that regard.

What is productive is the result that came out of Durban from our talks, which is an international will and an international agreement to put forward an agreement whereby all major emitters sit around the table to ensure that we have real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This is progress.