2009-09-18

Government Orders
Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):  moved that a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget, tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009, and to implement other measures, be concurred in. 
[Interjection]
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, September 16, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on motion No. 9 under Ways and Means.
Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]
 (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) 
Vote #104
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Employment Insurance Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from September 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: When the bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake had the floor and he has 17 minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue to speak today in support of Bill C-50, which would provide temporary and additional EI regular benefits to unemployed long-tenured workers.
Canada did not create the financial storms that have hit the global economy. Canada is better placed than other countries to recover. That is small consolation to the many workers who have dedicated their careers to an industry and who now find that this particular industry can no longer sustain their jobs.
Unfortunately, there are many examples of such industries across Canada. 
The forestry sector has been hit very hard. Forestry has provided the economic backbone of hundreds of communities across Canada. When a paper mill or a sawmill shuts down, workers who have spent decades in that sector now find that they really have few options for employment in that community.
The challenges are particularly tough for long-tenured workers, many of whom have become highly skilled in this industry. They need more time to find other work.
The manufacturing sector has also been hit very hard during this recession. Perhaps the most obvious examples come from the automotive sector, but many other manufacturing industries are also facing tough times, including the steel industry in my riding of Selkirk--Interlake.
Like forestry, manufacturing has sustained the wealth, prosperity and quality of life of Canadians for generations. It contributes close to 14% of Canada's GDP and employs close to 1.9 million workers across Canada, mostly in full-time jobs. Like forestry, our manufacturing industries have a tremendous spill-over impact, providing jobs for suppliers and service industries and integrating them into global supply chains.
In the 1990s Canada's manufacturing sector grew rapidly as manufacturers took advantage of recent trade agreements and a low valued dollar. Over the past decade manufacturers have faced both structural and cyclical pressures. In the past few years manufacturers have been hit by a series of challenges.
Manufacturers compete with lower cost producers in other countries. They contend with dramatic fluctuations in energy and commodity prices, making it difficult to plan for the long term.
The value of the Canadian dollar has risen and fallen, making our exports harder to price. In the wake of American concerns over security, delays at the Canada-U.S. border have hurt the ability of manufacturers to deliver on time to U.S. customers.
Now we have a recession that has hit the global economy very hard. Across the Canadian manufacturing sector the story is the same: consumers are buying less; investors have less capital to invest; credit is tightening; buyers take longer to pay; and inventories are rising.
The government has taken steps to address the challenges faced by the manufacturing and forestry sectors, and it has taken special care to address the needs of the workers caught in this economic storm, those workers who have put in a long time in their industry.
Let me remind the House that this government was addressing the challenges faced by the forestry and manufacturing industry even before this recession hit. We moved on many fronts: from tax relief to accelerated write-offs for machinery and equipment; from support to the financial system to increasing the flow of trade at the Canada-U.S. border; and from cutting red tape to helping develop a skilled labour force.
As far back as 2007 Canada was one of the first countries to inject major fiscal stimulus into its economy to offset a downturn when we introduced $65 billion in tax reductions. These tax reductions have taken effect just when they are needed most. That is just one example of the prudent planning and strong economic leadership shown by this Conservative government.
In last February's budget we introduced Canada's economic action plan to ensure a quick recovery and long-term economic growth.
The action plan provided $12 billion in new infrastructure stimulus funding over the next two years. This creates jobs in the short-term and for the long-term it builds an infrastructure with the capacity to handle a vibrant economy in the future.
Canada's economic action plan extended the temporary 50% straight line accelerated capital cost allowance rate. Capital intensive industries like forestry and manufacturing can restructure and retool to position themselves for long-term success.
The action plan eliminated the tariffs on a range of machinery and equipment. This will provide over $440 million in savings to Canadian industry over the next five years.
To help companies gain access to financing during these tough times, the action plan provided a coordinated package of measures totalling $200 billion under the extraordinary financing framework. We increased the financing available through Export Development Canada and the Business Development Bank.
These are measures to help the industrial sectors, like forestry and manufacturing, to recover from the recession and retool for the future. These are measures that will help maintain Canada's jobs and create more jobs in years to come. We have also taken steps to help the individual workers affected by the slowdown in these industries.
We launched our Canada skills and transition strategy as well. We introduced the wage earner protection program. If an employer goes bankrupt and cannot pay, the program provides eligible workers with guaranteed and timely payments of the remaining wages, severance, termination and vacation pay. 
We extended the targeted initiative for older workers with an additional $60 million over three years to support older workers and their families, and to expand the program to include workers in small cities.
The House will also be aware that we have introduced many changes to employment insurance as part of Canada's economic action plan. Those changes are helping workers and their families get through difficult times. They are helping in the communities where these workers live.
Many programs and initiatives work together to make this happen. For example, we increased funding for training delivered through EI. We are providing five additional weeks of EI regular benefits for all unemployed Canadians and in areas of high unemployment, we increased the maximum duration of EI benefits from 45 to 50 weeks. 
Yesterday I talked about the extension in duration of the work sharing agreements by 14 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks. This has worked so well in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake in the steel industry. We also introduced the career transition program initiative that I talked about as well yesterday.
As the House can see, the government has adjusted the EI programs to respond to the needs of those workers who are hardest hit by the economic downturn.
Now it is time to make another adjustment to address the challenges faced by long-tenured workers who need to find a new job. Many of these people have paid into the EI program for years. Often they have worked in the same industry, sometimes at the same job.
Over the decades they helped strengthen the program with their contributions. Now when these long-tenured workers need help the most, we want to ensure that the program is there for them.
In the bill before us the regular benefits of long-tenured workers would be extended between 5 and 20 weeks. The amount of the extension will depend on the number of years these workers have contributed to the program.
The provisions will remain in place for those who claim EI benefits until September 11, 2010 and the benefits will continue until the fall of 2011. By that time we have every hope that the worst of the economic storm will have past. Workers will be finding new jobs, sometimes in new industries.
The measures in the bill before us will not permanently change the duration of EI benefits. They are temporary responses to a temporary, yet difficult, situation faced by long-tenured workers in certain industries.
With our experience with the career transitions initiative for long-tenured workers, which has been in place since last May, we know that EI claimants from all sectors will benefit from this new measure.
Bill C-50 demonstrates that our government is making responsible choices to support Canadians now and we are not the only ones who think that this type of measure is good for workers and good for the economy.
A couple of weeks ago in the Canadian Press on August 25, Don Drummond, the TD Bank's chief economist, said:
 I think time is going to prove that the debate we're having on the employment insurance system is focusing on the wrong thing. I think this recession will prove it has been less about an access problem than a duration problem. 
This is precisely right. Many Canadians who have worked and contributed for years have been laid off, caught up in the global economic turmoil, and they are having trouble finding new jobs.
As we move toward recovery, job prospects will improve, but until then many unemployed workers will be able to take advantage of an extension in the duration of their benefits through Bill C-50. 
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said, “It was a step in the right direction”.
Back on June 22, Ken Lewenza, the president of the Canadian Auto Workers, said in the Exchange Morning Post:
 In the months ahead tens of thousands of unemployed workers are going to join the growing ranks of Canadians who have exhausted their EI benefits. They need action, not political posturing. 
Action to help tens of thousands, in fact close to 200,000, long-term workers by our estimates, is exactly what we are providing. We are taking the action needed to extend their EI benefits.
In this month's Policy Options, Jeremy Leonard of the IRPP, the Institute for Research on Public Policy, said that the narrow focus on 360 days was unfortunate because the more serious issue was how to deal with the large number of long-term unemployed who are no longer eligible for EI. Duration of benefits is exactly what we are addressing here today with this bill.
Also, in this month's Policy Options, Janice MacKinnon, the former social services minister of Saskatchewan, said that instead of 360 days, it would be better to expand coverage and improve the benefits of those who have paid into the program for years but find themselves unemployed.
Again, that is exactly what we are doing. We are taking reasonable, fair and affordable actions to help Canadians who have worked hard and paid their taxes for a long time.
The president of the United Steelworkers in our human resources minister's own riding said in Wednesday's paper that, “It's going to be quite good and give workers a little more time. This is a good thing to extend benefits to people like that”. I agree that the measures in Bill C-50 are a good thing and they will be a good thing for Canadians who need them. 
What is unfortunate is the Liberal fixation on its unaffordable and irresponsible 45-day work year. What is even more unfortunate is that the Liberal opposition has decided it is not important enough to help the approximately 190,000 long-tenured workers who will be helped by this bill.
No, helping the unemployed is not important enough to the Liberals on the other side. Their own political ambitions, some might say their own sense of entitlement, seems to have taken the driver's seat. They just cannot work with this government and other parties in the House to ensure that help gets to all Canadians who need it. They just want to oppose us and get back into power.
I know that back in my riding my constituents appreciate the work of this government to ensure that unemployed Canadians are getting the help they need and that we do not send Canadians into an unnecessary election that no one wants.
Our government will remain focused on the economy in helping those hardest hit by the economic downturn. We are focused on what matters to Canadians right now: helping those hardest hit, investing in training, and helping to create and protect jobs. We are going to keep working on Bill C-50 to help long-tenured workers. 
The minister has indicated that our government is working on measures for the self-employed, as we promised to do, and is moving forward on other parts of our economic action plan to help move Canada toward economic recovery. We are going to keep working toward recovery and I encourage all members to work with us, especially with respect to Bill C-50.
Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on Bill C-50 and ask the hon. member a question about what the bill does not cover.
This is particularly apt in light of the spring and summer that my native province of New Brunswick that I represent experienced. While my riding does not have a lot of lobster fishermen, it is a centre for distribution of the lobster industry. For all lobster fishers and people working in the industry, it has been a horrible year and season. 
That is in addition to the downturn with respect to the forest industry in my province. My province is home to the Irving company and hosts many companies that work in forestry. It has been a disastrous year for seasonal workers and the only crumb from the government provides no real benefit to the seasonal workers of my province who feel completely insulted and left out by what is offered in Bill C-50.
My question to my friend, whom I respect and know is a man of the terroir, who has made a living off of farming and cattle ranching, who knows the people involved in our first primary industries, is this. What will he say on behalf of the government about what this bill does not have for the fishermen and the foresters in my province of New Brunswick?
[Interjection]
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, the member may be surprised that I actually represent a great number of commercial fishermen in the freshwater fishery, a very seasonal fishery. In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake there are over 1,200 commercial fishermen. They are telling me that EI is working for them and they appreciate the support they get through EI. 
Since the rules have been extended, they can get extra coverage now if they have an unfortunate downturn as a seasonal worker through the EI program. That has always been available to our fishing industry. That is important and something that needs to continue to be there for resource-based industries.
As a matter of fact, we are going to continue to look at expanding EI so that self-employed Canadians, those who make their living off the land, like farmers or small businesses up and down our main streets in small rural communities, are going to be able to get it as we move forward with the additions of maternity and paternal benefits. That will be available to those who are self-employed, which right now does not exist. That is a great way to support women in business and entrepreneurs. 
I just finished a tour of my riding and everybody is excited to hear about these changes that we are making to EI.
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Conservative member. All of the Conservatives' arguments are based on a claim that does not hold up, namely that Bill C-50 will create 190,000 new claimants, who will receive extended employment insurance benefits. This represents $935 million.
To get these figures, 85% of claimants would have to complete all of the weeks to which they are entitled to benefits. But we know that 25% of claimants do so. At best, 60,000 people in the country could benefit from Bill C-50, for a total of $300 million. Labour organizations and advocacy groups for the unemployed have realized this, as has the CAW.
Our colleague claims that the automobile industry is happy with this. What does he say about the fact that the CAW thinks it is a terrible bill and is calling on us to vote against it?
[Interjection]
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this program is going to help tens of thousands of Canadians in all the sectors, whether auto, forestry, manufacturing or, in my riding, the steel industry. We have already done a lot of that in supporting them, with work-sharing and career transition programs. We have been supporting older workers, if they have to leave an industry and are now are trying to find work, with retraining and extended training benefits.
Through the economic action plan and the changes that we have made in EI, over $1.5 billion has already helped over 150,000 Canadians. With what we are proposing to do in Bill C-50, with the additional five weeks that we have already introduced, 300,000 Canadians have already benefited. What we are seeing with the new program is that by extending five to twenty weeks on top of that, another 190,000 long-tenured Canadian workers who have paid their premiums, who have been there for their companies and never really benefited from the program in the past, now will, and they will be able to support their families until their industries recover.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the debate around Bill C-50 should be framed in the context that the Liberals used the EI program as a cash cow. First they changed the rules so that hardly anybody qualified anymore, and then they raked in billions and billions of dollars, $54 billion, and used it for other purposes. 
In fact when the Liberals gutted the EI system so that it was virtually dysfunctional, it caused a loss in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre of $20 million a year in federal money that used to flow into my riding but no longer did. Twenty million dollars a year is the size of a payroll of a plant with 4,000 employees. It was devastating to an already poor riding, so I am listening with some disbelief as the Liberals speak against putting $1 billion of EI money into the pockets of unemployed workers when it was they themselves who were the architects of this dysfunctional system. They robbed the EI fund of $50 billion. That is what is difficult for me to understand.
There is another point that we have to keep in context. The Liberals paid down the deficit on the backs of unemployed workers, which was shameful, and it is hypocritical now for them to be speaking against putting some money back into workers' pockets.
My question for my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake is this. Will he not concede that even though it is virtuous to put $1 billion back into the pockets of unemployed workers, that it is not the government's money? 
The EI fund is made up of the contributions of employers and employees. There is no federal money in the EI fund, so while we will support Bill C-50, we want to acknowledge that it is the workers' money that is being held in trust by the EI fund which is rightfully going back into the workers' pockets now that they need it if they are unemployed.
[Interjection]
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre is right that the EI premiums paid by workers and employers became a cash grab by the previous government. The Liberals used that money to pay down the deficit and to fund their special interest programs. It was essentially a slush fund. They never used it to the benefit of those who paid into it. In fact they actually increased the premiums while they reduced the number of people who could qualify for EI. It was a terrible thing to do, and it is something that was not fair to the Canadian people.
We are trying to make sure that we balance that off now. That is what this is about, being there to support those workers who need it the most today. We want to make sure that as we move forward, the fund will be self-sustaining over the long term. Of course the government is there to underwrite that fund. That is what we are doing, putting this money in right now. We are helping the fund carry forward during this difficult time as it is drawn upon. 
We know that in the future it will again be able to build up its own surplus and hopefully be actuarially sound as employers hire more workers back and there are more people available to pay the premiums and build up the program.
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today we saw something kind of interesting happen in the House. We saw the Liberal Party vote against the implementation of measures they voted for in principle previously. I found that kind of interesting.
My question is in regard to the contradiction between what the Liberals say and what the rest of the world is saying about Canada's success rate right now. We have seen The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, the London Telegraph, the IMF, the World Economic Forum, and the World Bank all praising Canada's situation relative to that of other countries.
Recently, coming out of the G20 finance ministers' meeting, we had Christine Lagarde, France's finance minister, come out and say, “I think … we can be inspired by … the Canadian situation. There were some people who said, ‘I want to be Canadian'”.
That is France's finance minister saying there were some people who said they wanted to be Canadian. Of course, at this point we do not even really know what the Liberal leader's position is on that issue.
 I wonder if the hon. member could comment on how this new measure, building on the measures that the Liberals voted against today, will help to further that position of leadership that Canada has on the global economy.
[Interjection]
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member 100%.
We have been praised by the global community for the way we have managed our problems here in Canada during this global economic downturn. We are not going to sit back and wait. We are going to continue to be engaged, and that is why we are making these changes through Bill C-50 to help long-tenured unemployed workers, to provide them and their families those extra benefits and extra support as they wait for the economy to improve so they will hopefully be able to return to their previous places of employment or be able to find new jobs.
The argument is quite right, the Liberals just stood in the House and voted against a great initiative here, our home renovation tax credit, something that Canadians have already engaged in, something the Liberals supported back in the spring. Now they are voting against it just because they want an election that nobody else in Canada wants.
We are busy fighting the recession, and the Liberals are fighting the economic recovery. This is completely unacceptable and shameful. They want to spend even more than we are suggesting here by narrowing down the work year to only 45 days. That is not sustainable. There is no way that we should be having a 360-hour program and blowing even more money in essentially supporting people who are going to work only the summer months. Keep our students employed and everybody would be on the same program. That is not right either.
What we need to do is support those who have been employed for a long period of time. We are going to do that through Bill C-50 and help them get through this difficult situation.
[Interjection]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, respectfully, we operate in this place on the presumption of honesty. I know all hon. members try to be correct.
During the hon. member's speech, he indicated, I believe incorrectly, that the Liberals were increasing EI premiums. The record shows 13 years of EI premium decreases.
I wonder if the member would correct the record—
[Interjection]
The Speaker:  I don't think this is a point of order. It sounds like a matter of debate, and questions and comments time has ended. The member for Mississauga South cannot use this as a means of asking another question of the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, fascinated though I am sure the hon. member is with proceeding.

Statements By Members
LobsterMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 2009 has been designated as the Year of the Lobster by the Municipality of the District of Barrington, a coastal community in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's. The Municipality of the District of Barrington is the lobster capital of Canada. The Atlantic waters surrounding this area are some of the best lobster fishing grounds Canada has to offer, and the lobster industry is the second most lucrative industry in the province of Nova Scotia, worth nearly $500 million and employing thousands of fishers and plant workers.
Lobster is Canada's most valuable seafood export, and hard-shell lobster from southwest Nova Scotia rates the highest export value. However, the economic downturn has seriously affected the municipality's lobster industry. The low prices currently being paid for lobster mean many fishers can barely make ends meet.
I call on all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing 2009 as the Year of the Lobster and, in honour of this designation, I encourage all Canadians to help support the lobster industry by buying Nova Scotia lobsters.
Vaughan TornadoHon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Vaughan residents, we will always remember the evening of August 20, 2009, when a severe tornado hit our city, causing a great deal of physical damage and emotional pain.
Today, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to the citizens of Vaughan for their great demonstration of courage and dignity. It was heartwarming to see people providing assistance to one another and to see relatives, friends and neighbours opening their homes and their hearts to those in need. 
That night, after having spent hours with the outstanding professionals from the Vaughan Fire &amp; Rescue Service, York Regional Police and members of the emergency operations centre, including elected officials from all levels of government and the very dedicated and committed city staff, I witnessed my community coming together in a very special way.
We, the residents of Vaughan, will surely never forget the humbling power of nature, but as a community rooted in courage, compassion and generosity, together we pulled through. Friends and neighbours lost their homes, but no one lost hope. It is Vaughan's resilient spirit at work.
Hugo ValiquetteMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate a man from my region, Hugo Valiquette, who is Lanaudière's first ambassador of the francophonie in the Americas. With over 12 years of community involvement, Mr. Valiquette was selected during the first forum organized by the Centre de la francophonie des Amériques in Quebec City last June. 
The Quebec nation is the cradle of francophonie in North America, so the new ambassador's role will be extremely important, as his job is to promote the French language across the continent. In North America, Quebec is leading the charge to protect and promote our language, and we are delighted with the appointment of this Quebecker. This sends a strong signal about the vitality of our nation and our language.
Once again, I would like to express how proud I am to represent an ambassador of the francophonie in this House. I wish him every success.
Veterans AffairsMr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was very disturbing to learn that Canadian Forces veterans who have served in peacekeeping and other missions since the Korean War are denied the use of long-term care facilities and hospital beds provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
Exclusion of these veterans overlooks the unique care that is often required for veterans who face specific physical and psychological injuries and needs. Not only do DVA pavilions provide this unique care, they allow veterans to be surrounded by others who have shared a similar past and, therefore, understand the difficulties they face presently. 
While the number of surviving eligible veterans is quickly dwindling, the number of Canadian Forces veterans who have served since Korea and who require care is likely to steadily rise, allowing for the continued use of these facilities.
All veterans deserve to be treated equally, as well as with dignity and respect. The policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs should be changed to reflect these principles, and access to DVA pavilions should be given to veterans who have served their country in Bosnia, Cyprus, Africa, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
InfrastructureMr. Phil McColeman (Brant, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 1999, 39 students arrived in Brantford to start the satellite campus of Wilfrid Laurier University. Ten years later, over 3,000 have arrived to the bustling campuses of both Nipissing and Laurier universities. Along with a thriving Mohawk College campus, post-secondary education is becoming the largest economic driver in my riding of Brant.
I am pleased to report to the House that since early June, the new Laurier research and academic centre has been under construction thanks to infrastructure stimulus funding. Our Conservative government's investment in Laurier Brantford has been providing significant economic stimulus to my community all summer long. It has been creating jobs all summer long; real people, real jobs, real action.
Eid ul-FitrMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September 20, Muslims across the world will be celebrating Eid ul-Fitr, which loosely translated means “a festival of charity”. This Eid commemorates the end of the fasting period of Ramadan. The month of Ramadan is a time for spiritual reflection and generosity toward those in need.
During Eid ul-Fitr, Muslims are required to give charity and extend friendship to all, regardless of colour, creed, race or religion. Islam teaches Muslims that all human beings are one humanity and therefore should be respected.
In a time of economic recession with the challenges facing so many families, it is even more important for governments and citizens alike to practise the values of generosity, solidarity and pluralism that Islam teaches.
On behalf of the entire Liberal team, I would like to extend to all Muslims a happy and joyous celebration of Eid ul-Fitr. Eid Mubarak.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on July 23, Shawn Atleo was elected national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. He is a member and former regional chief of the Ahousaht First Nation in British Colombia. Mr. Atleo brings a wealth of experience to his role.
For 20 years he has served in various capacities, as a first nations leader, negotiator, facilitator, mediator and strategic planner. He has a keen understanding of the challenges facing aboriginal people in Canada.
On September 13, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples elected Betty-Ann LaVallée as national chief. A status off-reserve Mi'kmaq woman, Ms. LaVallée has extensive experience on a variety of issues relating to off-reserve aboriginal people, including fisheries, housing, education, employment, economic development and health. She has also served her country for 17 years as a member of the Canadian armed forces. 
This government congratulates them and looks forward to working with both of them, as leaders in this country, to produce real results for aboriginal people.
Outaouais Festival of New ArtistsMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the second Festival de l'Outaouais Émergent was held from September 10 to 13. This locally organized festival was created to put on an event in downtown Gatineau that would bring together the people and artists of the Outaouais and promote the development of Gatineau's culture and identity. With great pride, we can say, “Mission accomplished”. 
Many artists took the stage to share their art and their passion with the people. We were treated to performances by artists including 37 Laval, Dress &amp; Gomez, le Duo d'Hull, Les Jaseurs, Tracteur Jack, Beast, Ghislain Poirier and more in addition to the work of other talented artists on display under the tents. It was a feast for the eyes and ears.
With a festival like this one, there can be no doubt that the Outaouais is an exciting place to experience Quebec's culture and identity.
IndiaMr. Devinder Shory (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the 1990s, before the present Liberal leader returned to Canada to be crowned by party elite, the Liberal government was pursuing an isolationist policy toward India.
However, I am happy to say that Canada-India relations are at an all-time high under our Conservative government. 
With trade, for example, exports to India in 2008 totalled $2.4 billion, more than double the last year the Liberals were in power. We have also begun talks on an economic partnership agreement which could be worth billions; started discussions on a nuclear cooperation agreement; advanced negotiations on a FIPA; and expanded our trade network in India to eight offices, making it one of Canada's largest networks worldwide.
Our Conservative government recognizes that isolating important partners is not the way to do business. We want to build on our successes and create even more opportunities for Canadians and Indians alike.
Rosh HashanahHon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this evening, blasts of the shofar will ring in the new year, 5770, for Jewish communities everywhere. Around the world, and here in Canada, our fellow citizens of the Jewish faith will celebrate Rosh Hashanah. This is a period of great celebration and as importantly of honest self-reflection.
Over the weekend, families and friends will gather across Canada to share in this most special of holy days, celebrating the passing year and ushering in the new. I know that all members of the House will join me in wishing our Jewish friends, colleagues and neighbours a Shanah tovah u’metukah. May their year and ours be blessed with peace, joy and good health.
I would like to offer a very special good Yom Tov to the Jewish community in my home riding of Eglinton—Lawrence.
FirefightersMr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last Sunday I had the privilege of attending the memorial service on Parliament Hill, held each year to honour the brave men and women of our country's firefighting ranks who have given their lives in service to protect our communities and families.
It was an important opportunity to show our support and our thanks to the families and friends of fallen firefighters. It is important to reflect on the fact that over 940 Canadian firefighters have given the ultimate sacrifice in the history of our country. We can never take the safety and security of our families and communities for granted.
I was proud to join the Burlington Firefighters Pipes and Drums band at the service. Burlington firefighters have the respect and admiration of all the citizens of Burlington. They are committed to the safety of our families and committed to the well-being of our community.
My message today is simple. Each and every one of us in the House want to extend a very heartfelt thanks to all the men and women of the fire services across Canada.
Climate ChangeMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we will soon be voting on Bill C-311, the climate change bill, in its third reading. In just 79 days, 6 hours and 11 minutes, Canada will be in Copenhagen to sign the world's next major climate treaty. However, we still do not know what the Conservative or Liberal policies actually are on climate change.
When will we get Canadian leadership and Canadian action on climate change? The people in Thunder Bay—Superior North are ready, willing and able to do their share, but Thunder Bay and north shore towns like Nipigon, Schreiber, Terrace Bay and Marathon are about to lose their intercity buses. We have already lost VIA Rail.
These were our most fuel-efficient ways to travel, plus their loss is making tough times in northwestern Ontario tougher still. Whether we are talking about regional hardships or national policy, our government must start taking action to protect our citizens and our planet.
Child CareMrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party continues its assault on the judgment and integrity of Canadian families. At the finance committee, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel had this to say about giving money directly to parents to help pay for child care. He said, “the problem that I'm seeing is that the parents don't provide. They may have the money, but they use it for their own purposes”.
To even suggest that parents would ignore their own children's needs is offensive, yet the Liberal leader himself agrees. He has called the $100 per month child care benefit “wasteful” and “a terrible use of public funds”.
The Liberal leader should apologize for his party's attack on Canadian parents, but he will not because he and the Liberals truly do not trust parents to decide what is best for their children. On this side of the House, we will always stand up for Canadian parents and families.
International Day of PeaceMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, September 21 has been declared International Day of Peace, established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1981. This day has been set aside to commemorate and strengthen the ideals of peace within and among all nations and people, as well as to promote a day of global ceasefire and non-violence.
This year, a multiplatform campaign under the slogan “WMD – We Must Disarm” is meant to raise awareness of the dangers and costs of nuclear weapons, and to promote nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Although the cold war era has long since passed, it is important that we continue reducing nuclear arsenals.
With that goal in mind, Canada must live up to its international reputation and take on the task of promoting peace, by showing leadership in nuclear disarmament and the reduction of nuclear arsenals.
Political PartiesMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): It is official, Mr. Speaker, pigs have flown. Not only that, hell has frozen over. The opposition parties who said they would never in a million years vote confidence in a right wing Conservative government, have just united in an unholy alliance.
The marriage has been consummated. All that is left to do now is to figure out what to call this political ménage à trois. A suggestion would be the hypocrisy alliance. How about socons? That is short for socialist and conservative. The conservative lapdog triplets, how about that one? The train wreck trio. How about an acronym, BURN Canada, as in bloc united with reform conservatives and new democrats. Let us try Jack and Gilles crawl down from their hill. The possibilities are endless.
Whatever we call it, Canadians know full well they will never call it “coherent”, and they sure as heck will not call it “principled”.
Child CareMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to attack the child care benefit.
The spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition and member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel recently said: “I think the problem is that parents are not providing for their children's needs. They have money, but they spend it on their own needs.”
Questioning the integrity and the judgment of Canadian and Quebec parents and accusing parents of ignoring the needs of their own children is shameful.
The Liberal leader thinks that these benefits are useless and a very poor use of public funds. In March he even hinted that he plans to scrap them.
This only goes to show that this leader and his party are not really concerned with the interests of Canadians and Quebeckers.
Canadians and Quebeckers will remember that.

Oral Questions
HealthHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while European countries will start H1N1 vaccinations in September, and the United States in October, this government is telling us that we may have the vaccines in mid-November. Doctors are saying that vaccines must be ready as soon as possible, but because of the Conservatives' incompetence, we could have them at best in two months.
How can Canadians have confidence in this government to protect us against H1N1?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we support the health department's action plan.
We support what the health and public safety departments and the Chief Public Health Officer are doing. They have a plan of action based on a plan that this government has put in place in conjunction with our North American allies and the World Health Organization. 
This plan aims to protect the Canadian public as best we can. Working with our international partners, we are doing just that.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the other health minister.
While some countries, like Australia, are only a week or two away from getting their populations vaccinated, we still do not know when Canadians will be protected against H1N1. Now the World Health Organization is saying that vaccine production will be substantially less than forecast.
With one outbreak already this month and the growing risk of more, could the government guarantee that even one Canadian will be vaccinated two months from today?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Kildare over there.
We rely on the advice of public health professionals and on the advice of the Chief Public Health Officer, all of whom are medical physicians. We have a plan that can protect the Canadian public. It is based on the best advice of public health officials and epidemiologists. I will take their advice over that member's advice any day of the week.
Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Seuss.
In the isolated Dehcho First Nation community of Wrigley in the Northwest Territories, two-thirds of 175 residents have fallen ill with flu-like symptoms. The residents feel as though someone “has shut off the light”. There is no plan and they have no idea when help will arrive. Federal health officials have been muzzled and will not comment.
What is the government's plan to help the people of Wrigley? Why can an entire community be left in the dark at a time like this?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. 
British Columbia health officials, who are working with the Public Health Agency of Canada, have indicated that the hon. member's statements are based on an inflammatory article that is not accurate. 
Health officials in British Columbia are aware of these cases. We are working with British Columbia first nations and first nations communities across the country to protect citizens of our country, and we will continue to do so.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, researchers at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute in the U.S. have said that vaccination needed to start this week to be effective in slowing the spread of H1N1. The Conservative government is too late.
The Ahousaht First Nation on Vancouver Island is suffering from Canada's first H1N1 outbreak. The government does not have a plan that gets vaccine into our communities today.
How can Canadians have any confidence in the government's ability to protect us in this situation?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have a plan that we adopted back in 2006.
Our goal is to ensure that there is a balance between speed and gathering as much information on the vaccine's safety and effectiveness before we start distributing it across the country. We are on target. We have confirmed that we will be distributing the vaccine to provinces and territories the first week of November. We have been saying that all along. 
That plan was endorsed by all the provinces and territories yesterday at the FPT meeting in Winnipeg.
Ujjal Dosanjh: Mr. Speaker, the minister and the government are on target and late. The study also concluded that this pandemic was most likely to be similar to the Asian influenza pandemic of 1957 and that children would experience the highest illness attack rates.
Vaccinations should have started already. The government cannot even guarantee that a single Canadian will be vaccinated within two months. How can Canadians ever have confidence in the government to protect our children, to protect the most vulnerable Canadians?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear that every Canadian who wants to receive the vaccine will receive the vaccine. Unlike other countries, Canada is very fortunate to have a plan in place that is being implemented, and we are on track. The vaccine will be available the first week of November for every Canadian. Unlike other countries, we are very fortunate to have a plan in place that is working for Canadians.
Employment InsuranceMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, workers at AbitibiBowater, which is due to close, will not be able to take advantage of the additional weeks of employment insurance benefits the government has announced. Like many other workers, those at AbitibiBowater have been laid off intermittently, which means that they are not eligible for the new measures. Even Quebec's labour minister is calling on the federal government to consider forestry workers.
Does the minister realize that her bill does nothing to address the real problems facing the unemployed, starting with eligibility for EI?
Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is getting to be as bad as the Liberals. While they refused to remain part of our committee and abandoned the unemployed, long-tenured workers would now like to benefit from five to 20 additional weeks of employment insurance, but the Bloc Québécois is raising objections to this bill and holding it up. Who will pay the price? The unemployed workers that the Bloc is holding hostage today.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, what a nerve. We proposed going to committee right away, in order to hear from unemployed workers. They are afraid to hear from the unemployed, afraid to hear from the experts. And all the minister can tell us is that the regular system is good enough for forestry workers. In other words, he is telling them to be happy with the system they cannot qualify for. That is this minister's meaningless and painful logic.
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, that is the Bloc Québécois policy: all or nothing. The government has to give everyone everything, otherwise the Bloc does not want the government to move forward.
What have we done? We have added five weeks of EI benefits for the unemployed because of the global economic recession. We have extended job sharing to assist employers and help employees keep their jobs. We have committed $1.15 billion so that workers can spend two years learning a new trade while being paid. Furthermore, today we are adding five to 20 weeks of benefits for long-tenured workers.
Forestry IndustryMr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to come and say that to the 340 workers in Beaupré who lost their jobs. We will see if that suits them. That plant will lose 340 jobs.
Quebec's minister of economic development, Clément Gignac, a federalist, not a separatist, a banker, not a socialist, has criticized the federal government for sitting back and doing nothing. He has been clamouring for assistance for the pulp and paper industry, similar to that of the auto sector.
When will this government wake up?
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course it is important on this day to think about the workers who have temporarily lost their jobs. I would remind the House that these closures are temporary. We must think of those families today. 
I spoke with Quebec's minister of economic development a few times in the past few days. We have been working with the Quebec government in recent months to improve the state of the Quebec forestry industry, and of course we will continue to do so.
The only thing the Bloc can ever do is whine about what we are doing, while we, on the other hand, continue to work on behalf of our workers. 
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the measures needed to assist the forestry industry are well known. The Canadian Paperworkers Union reminded us: the closures could have been avoided if the company had been granted loan guarantees. Is that clear?
When will this government face the facts and grant loan guarantees, as everyone in Quebec has been calling for?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. First of all, last week, I went to see the 5,000 workers in Dolbeau-Mistassini and I also attended the union demonstration the week before. We are working on the ground with people.
On August 31, 2009, Export Development Canada committed over $7 billion in support for Quebec's forestry industry through access to credit, loan guarantees and accounts receivable insurance. I am talking about $7 billion, and they say we have done nothing. That is not what the unions are saying. Our government is getting the job done and will continue to do so.
TaxationMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, increasing taxes on everyday essentials is like trying to dig oneself out of a hole. Yet the government is pushing forward with its HST scheme, raising taxes on items like school supplies, home heating and even funerals. Harmonization will create more harm than good.
Could the government explain how paying higher taxes will help Canadians who are struggling with this recession?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, I encourage the hon. member, if she feels very strongly about this, to run for a position in the British Columbia legislature. That is the place that makes those kinds of decisions, as does the Ontario legislature. Our place is merely to facilitate decisions that have already been made by provincial legislatures. That is our place in this.
Her party, however, whenever it gets a chance, wants to increase taxes, wants to increase the burden on businesses, as well as individuals. That is her record. Thank goodness it is not this government's record.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, it is that sort of twisted logic that feeds the cynicism of the public. 
The finance minister lobbied B.C. for years to harmonize its sales tax with the GST. Now the minister is trying to convince us that his government had nothing to do with this unpopular tax shift, but Canadians see the $1 billion trail leading to his door.
I would like to ask the finance minister, exactly what date did negotiations with B.C. begin? The people of B.C. would love to know that.
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, all I know is when she and her party were given a chance to lower the GST by two points, she and every member of that caucus voted against it. To the shame of their tax-fighting credentials, they are certainly a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, why the cover-up on the date?
Let us be clear. Harmonizing sales taxes in British Columbia and Ontario is tantamount to a tax increase on basic goods for ordinary families. They will have to pay more for fuel, their loved ones' funerals, heating during winter and even their children's diapers. That is really rotten.
Can the minister explain how raising the price of basic goods will help families recover from the economic crisis?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that follows along the direction we see consistently day by day in the House of Commons. The NDP does not understand what makes businesses prosper in our country. It is our small and medium enterprises that pay the taxes, that employ Canadians. 
Every time NDP members stand in the House, they stand against Canadians. They want to raise taxes, but this government has put forward many pieces of legislation to reduce the taxes of Canadians. Unfortunately, they have voted against them every time.
Forestry IndustryMrs. Alexandra Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is more bad news at AbitibiBowater and the Conservatives continue to do nothing.
Almost 500 jobs in Beaupré and Clermont were eliminated yesterday. That is in addition to the thousands of other jobs that have disappeared in the sector since the beginning of the crisis.
Why did the Conservatives cancel the $1.5 billion loan guarantee program established by the previous Liberal government?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, and it is important to repeat it for my colleague, on August 31, 2009, Export Development Canada made available to the Quebec forestry industry more than $7 billion in credit access, loan guarantees and receivables insurance.
I would like to remind the member opposite that between 2000 and 2006, the Liberal Party completely abandoned the Canadian forestry industry by failing to enter into an agreement with the U.S. In addition, the Liberals' only solution to the current crisis is to trigger an election. It would be much better if they would work with us and find solutions. 
Alexandra Mendes: Mr. Speaker, we can only surmise that the Conservatives seem bent on destroying the forestry industry. Backed by the Bloc, they signed the softwood sellout agreement with the United States. The Conservatives and the Bloc handed over a $1 billion gift to the American lobby. What is worse, this sellout agreement has forced our industry to defend itself with one hand behind its back. Bill C-50 will not provide any assistance to workers who have lost their jobs. The government of Quebec and the Liberals know this.
How will we help these workers?
Denis Lebel: Mr. Speaker, when we signed this agreement with the U.S., we brought back $4.5 billion to Canada and redistributed the entire amount to the forestry industry. Countervailing duties have fallen from 30% on average to less than 15%. We did our job.
Unfortunately the pulp and paper industry is now in crisis. In 2009 alone, AbitibiBowater's share in the paper market declined by 31% and, since 2000, sales of newsprint have dropped by 42%.
Unfortunately, this is about markets. However, we will continue to support the forestry industry and to do our job.
NortelMr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, the second auction of Nortel assets earlier this week dealt with its Enterprise business and the winning bid from a U.S. firm was for about $1 billion Canadian.
I was informed on Wednesday that the winner had notified the Canadian government that it was fully aware its purchase was subject to review under the Investment Canada Act because of its size and that it was ready for it. I am glad that that U.S. company is fully aware of how it works.
 I would like to ask the minister one more time why he does not realize how it works. 
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member is suggesting. Is he suggesting that this government has already taken a position that the particular transaction he mentioned is not reviewable? If he is under that misapprehension, it is indeed a misapprehension.
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the minister's decision with respect to the wireless assets of Nortel.
On Wednesday, the Minister of Industry dismissed the possibility of reviewing whether the sale of Nortel's wireless assets was in Canada's best interests. Even though the price paid was well above $1 billion Canadian, he maintained that the actual value was no more than $182 million, and that it would therefore not be necessary to review the transaction.
Even though the stakes are high and it would only be prudent, the minister simply said no.
Is this a good way to protect Canadian interests?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to go through this again.
There is a law in this country and it is called the Investment Canada Act. The law has a threshold for review. The threshold for review is $312 million based on the assets of the company. This particular transaction was $182.5 million underneath the threshold. Therefore, it is not reviewable, unless the Liberals want to have different laws for different transactions. If that is their idea of an economic policy, it stinks.
ImmigrationMr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, facts revealed on Radio-Canada's Enquête program shed rather troubling light on the government's mismanagement of the immigration file and highlight the minister's blatant lack of transparency on this issue. He claims to be aware of the situation, but he is not doing anything about it.
Given yesterday's revelations, will the minister act swiftly to implement visitor exit controls, a solution that the Bloc Québécois proposed back in 2008?
Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that our government takes a zero tolerance approach to immigration fraud. We are very concerned about the proliferation of bogus immigration consultants offering advice on or abuse of our system. Mr. Speaker, you can bet your bottom dollar that we are going to continue working toward that end.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the same program, which the parliamentary secretary should have watched yesterday, featured three secretly filmed consultants who acknowledged the existence of a fraudulent strategy to get around immigration laws.
Has the government initiated investigations? Will it press charges against these three people?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, obviously such situations are unacceptable. The department is very aware of these cases. As my colleague knows, investigations are under way. We cannot comment on an ongoing investigation. This is a case by case issue. People can be sure that the minister is dealing with this type of thing. It is unacceptable. Unscrupulous consultants will be punished to the full extent of the law. We will do everything in our power to address these unfortunate situations.
Mrs. Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, the CBC has revealed an extensive Canadian citizenship fraud scheme in Montreal. The report uncovered an industry of consultants specialized in creating fictional lives in order to help immigrants meet the legal residency requirements.
The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism said that he is aware of the fraud. Can he tell us whether this scheme has targeted regions outside Quebec?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, the department is fully aware of the recent media report of the activities of certain unscrupulous immigration consultants. To avoid jeopardizing ongoing investigations, I cannot speak to the specifics of any case. I can say again, clearly, we have zero tolerance on this side of the House for immigration fraud.
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac: Mr. Speaker, the CBC report revealed some shortcomings in the Lebanese government's administrative practices. By choosing not to stamp the passport directly upon arrival, the Lebanese authorities are counteracting the controls we have in place here.
The government is clearly in over its head here. Has it at least contacted the Lebanese authorities to put an end to this practice? 
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, this demagoguery needs to stop. My colleagues know very well—and if they do not know, we will repeat it—that this type of fraud is handled on a case-by-case basis. The Canada Border Services Agency is involved, as is the RCMP. These situations are taken very seriously. The government is taking action, and does not need any lectures from the Bloc on how to enforce the law. 
Canada-U.S. RelationsHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister declared victory over buy America in February, and exports to the U.S. are now down over 35%.
The Prime Minister did nothing to stop the new passport rule at the U.S. border, and same day travel across our border is now down 29%. Businesses and border towns are devastated.
How can Canadians trust the Prime Minister to defend our interests in the U.S., a Prime Minister who has been so wrong so many times, a Prime Minister who has failed to get any meaningful results against buy America protectionism in Washington?
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just had a very successful visit to Washington which included a face-to-face meeting with President Obama. They discussed Canadian proposals for open and freer trade. He also met with key congressional members. That was another very successful meeting. Last night he spoke to the Canadian American Business Council in New York. 
We are continuing to represent Canada's interests on the world stage, and with Americans.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, photo ops are not results in defending Canadian jobs in the U.S.
Finally, last night a Conservative prime minister actually stood up and defended Canada's health care system against vicious right-wing ideologues in the U.S. Unfortunately, it was not the current Conservative Prime Minister; it was Brian Mulroney. 
How can Canadians trust the current Prime Minister to stand up and defend our reputation and Canadian values in the U.S. when he will not even stand up for Canada's health care system in Washington?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has only used the public health care system in this country.
As for vicious right-wing ideologues, when I was a young Conservative, I remember the member opposite being one of those very vicious right-wing ideologues he speaks of.
Employment InsuranceMs. Siobhan Coady (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government plans to increase payroll taxes after the Liberals cut EI premiums 13 times.
The Minister of Transport admitted that increasing payroll taxes will hurt the Canadian economy. He also said, “We will not buy into that socialist scheme”.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is opposed. Canadian Manufacturers &amp; Exporters says it will slow hiring.
Why is the government hurting businesses instead of trying to create jobs? Are the Conservatives now taking their economic advice from their new partner, the NDP?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should realize that the EI premiums are now set, and will be set starting in 2011, by an independent arm's-length EI financing board.
Why are we doing that? For starters, we froze the EI premiums for two years during this recession so that we could protect jobs, so that we could keep more money in people's pockets. Also, we wanted to prevent what happened under the Liberals' watch, where the Liberals created a $50 billion surplus in the EI account and spent it on their political pet projects.
Siobhan Coady: Mr. Speaker, she would know about spending.
Even the economists who costed their last platform are saying that this is a tax increase. Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said that the payroll tax increase was not actually a tax increase.
Could he explain to us what he calls it when a Canadian is paying higher EI premiums? On their paycheques, will it simply show up as a “dumb idea”, as the Prime Minister has called it?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are having a really tough time figuring out where the Liberals stand on any particular issue. 
Take this as an example. While they are saying that the EI premiums should be held, which is what we are going to be doing and what we have done for two years, on the other hand they are saying that we should introduce a 45-day work year, where people could work for 45 days and collect EI for the rest. That would cost $4 billion.
On the one hand, they say do not raise it and on the other hand, they want to spend a horrific amount more to get themselves out of trouble.
Child CareMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have renewed their assault on the integrity and judgment of Canadian parents. 
The member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel says that parents cannot be trusted to spend the $100 per month child care benefit on their children, that instead they will spend it on themselves. One Liberal even suggests that parents would blow it on beer and popcorn. The Liberal leader calls the benefit, upon which so many parents depend, wasteful and a terrible use of public funds. 
Could the minister tell the House whether or not she agrees with this shameful attack on the judgment and integrity of Canadian parents and families?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of the shameless disrespect the Liberal Party has for parents in this country.
We believe that parents know best how their children should be raised. We believe that they can do it. That is why we provided the universal child care benefit of $100 a month for each child under the age of six.
 Parents know they can count on this Conservative government to stand up for them. What they can count on the Liberals for is to raise their taxes, as the Liberal Party leader  has promised to do.
BankruptcyMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this House passed a New Democratic bill that would put workers at the front of the line in bankruptcy settlements, yet during this recession, the government has failed to act on this legislation. Its inaction has put the pensions of workers from Nortel and other collapsed companies at risk.
 Earlier this week, the industry minister said, in reference to the bill that was passed, “We are looking forward to enacting these regulations forthwith”. According to my copy of the Oxford Dictionary, “forthwith” means “without delay”.
My question for the minister is, where is the bill? When is it coming forward and where are the results for Canadian workers?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member was not up late last night. He had his cup of hot cocoa and went to bed early, but at midnight last night, the bill came into effect.
NortelMr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): And they are proud of that legislation being passed, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Industry claims that there are no national security concerns with the foreign takeover of Nortel. How can he know this when a review, which involves multiple agencies, did not happen?
Let us be clear that there is no threshold when it comes to a national security review. 
When RIM purchased the company Certicom, it was reviewed by the United States. This Canadian firm purchased a Canadian company in Canada and the U.S. reviewed it. No wonder the U.S. does not take our government's security plans seriously.
Canadian taxpayers have contributed millions, if not billions, to Nortel. Why is the minister abandoning Canadian taxpayers and abandoning decisions about research and technology's cutting edge to foreign interests? 
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, in fact, we did do a national security review on this particular auction and transaction. I did consult with the Minister of Public Safety on that review, as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The conclusion was unanimous, which was that there were no national security issues in this case. In fact, one of the reasons was that all of the technology which is currently available is shared by at least 100 countries.
.Agriculture and Agri-foodMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Filière biologique du Québec is still angry. It cannot accept the federal government's intransigence. The government recognized the equivalence of the American organic standard, which is lower than the Canadian standard, but it is refusing to automatically recognize the Quebec standard, which is higher than the Canadian standard.
How can the minister accept such an injustice, and why does he not correct it?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member already asked me that question this week. I will tell him again that it is important that Canada have a single standard for organic products that applies to all the provinces. 
Sometimes provinces like Quebec have standards that are slightly different, but they have their value. We currently accept products from Quebec that are certified as organic under its standards. In 2011, Quebec will have to incorporate its standards into the Canadian standard.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, the organic farming sector in Quebec is made up of more than 1,000 operations, has sales of over $45 million and is growing by 15% to 20% a year. These results are due to the energy of Quebec artisans, who were the first and only in Canada to create a system to control which products are labelled as organic.
Why is the minister, who is a Quebecker, scuttling Quebec's efforts by requiring Quebec producers to work with two sets of standards and formalities to have access to the Canadian market? Is he not ashamed to favour Americans over Quebeckers?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I think the Bloc Québécois does not want to understand. Of course, it is only interested in separating Quebec. We are a country, and we do not want to have different standards from one province to another. Naturally, we have to find compromises. We will accept organic products from Quebec until 2011, when the new regulations take effect. That is what happens in a country. That country is Canada. It is not just Quebec.
2010 Olympic and Paralympic GamesMr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the issue of bilingualism at the Olympics, the alarm was sounded by francophone communities over one year ago, but the minister did not act. We have asked questions in the House and invited the minister to appear before the committee, but he did not act. We have offered solutions, but he did not act. The Standing Committee on Official Languages took him to task, but he did not act. Finally, today, a mere five months before the games, he improvised and announced additional funding. 
Does he not realize that funds are not enough? Real political will is also necessary, but that might be too much to ask of him. 
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games will be bilingual and will respect both official languages. In fact, our government recently provided VANOC with $7.7 million in additional funding for translation services at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. They will be a great success in both official languages. All Canadians will be included. This will be true of the opening and closing ceremonies, the cultural Olympiad and the Olympic torch relay. We will do our best— 
The Speaker: The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, they are so fond of improvising, let us talk about music. 
The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages does not seem to be a fan of jazz, folk, world, electroacoustic or even contemporary music. He surreptitiously made cuts to programs supporting such music.
These new cuts to culture are being denounced across the country by musicians like Glenn Milchem from Blue Rodeo, as well as by thousands of Canadians from coast to coast who have signed a petition in less than 48 hours. We are talking about thousands of people. 
Why does the minister, on the one hand, claim to want to support artists and, on the other hand— 
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, our Minister of Canadian Heritage  announced a $138 million investment into the Canadian music fund over this and the next four years. That is a five-year commitment.
What are people saying about this commitment to Canadian music? Heather Ostertag, the president and CEO of FACTOR, said:
 We are fortunate to have strong leadership and vision from our current government, which recognizes the importance of supporting sustainable business models and believes in the cultural component.... 
That is what we are hearing. That is what we are doing. We are standing behind Canadian music.
Fisheries and oceansJack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the sustainability of our fishing stocks and the sovereignty of this country are at risk. Instead of delivering on the promise of custodial management by Canada outside 200 miles, recent changes to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization convention could allow foreign nations to patrol and control what happens inside our 200 mile limit.
For all of the grandstanding we have seen from the government over the Arctic, why have we heard nothing from it about Atlantic fishing sovereignty?
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that this government has strengthened Canadian sovereignty and we want to thank the former fisheries minister for NAFO now having teeth. This convention will spell out clearly that Canada has 100% jurisdiction over Canadian waters.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, Premier Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote the Prime Minister saying that this is “an issue that threatens our very sovereignty as a nation”.
We have former deputy ministers of fisheries, two former directors responsible for the international file and an associate deputy minister saying that this is a backward step for Newfoundland and Labrador and should be rejected.
Will the government stand up for our sovereignty, refuse to ratify this agreement and file an objection to these changes at NAFO?
Gail Shea: Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member and the House, I would like to quote the fisheries minister in Newfoundland, on July 6, 2009, who said:
 The fact that Canada would have to support a NAFO measure and then request its application in the (200-mile limit) seems to provide the necessary safeguard against any unintended consequence of the amended convention. 
In another letter, the fisheries minister states, ”This along with securing the Canadian shares of NAFO-managed stocks makes an acceptable package”.
InfrastructureHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has made unprecedented investments in infrastructure across this country in big cities, small towns, urban areas and rural areas. Our economic action plan is getting projects moving and Canadians back to work.
The city of Toronto is a rising global centre, the country's most rapidly growing region and a critical driver of the Canadian economy. Would the Minister of Transport tell the House of our recent investment in Canada's largest city?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to make an important announcement with the Minister of Finance and my favourite mayor of a city of more than 2.5 million people, David Miller, in the city of Toronto for more than $600 million to support 500 projects. It will create jobs, hope and opportunity in Canada's largest city. It will lead to better public transit, cleaner water and better roads and bridges. 
Working together with Toronto, we are getting the job done.
Canada-U.S. RelationsHon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in June, the Minister of Foreign Affairs answered my question and said, “there is no existing Alaska-Yukon boundary dispute”.
This week, the Prime Minister said the exact opposite. He said, “The Beaufort Sea has been the subject of a territorial dispute...for some time”.
Meanwhile, Americans offer petroleum opportunities in Canada's sovereign waters. Will the minister continue to contradict the Prime Minister and, more important, when will he stand up for Canada and do something about the Beaufort Sea dispute that he says does not even exist?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in terms of Canada-U.S. relations, I want to reassure members of the House that these relations are excellent and they are working extremely well. The best evidence of that is the Prime Minister and the president's meeting earlier this week.
On that specific issue, the Minister of State, as well as myself have acknowledged the importance of continuing our work together in the Arctic and of being able to work on these issues that are obstacles. We will work together in the spirit of co-operation and manage the issues in the best interests of everyone. 
However, I will be very clear on this: we will defend our sovereignty.
Quebec BridgeMr. Pascal-Pierre Paillé (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Bridge, declared an international historic monument of civil engineering, has been neglected for far too long. Early this week, I moved a motion calling on the federal government to resume its ownership of the bridge and complete the work it needs as soon as possible.
Will the minister responsible for the Quebec City region stop hiding behind legal procedures and assume her responsibilities by resuming ownership of the Quebec Bridge?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Louis-Hébert for his question.
That bridge is indeed of great importance to the Quebec City region. This issue is currently before the courts. Our government has a strong team from the Quebec City area working hard on this matter.
I agree with the member. This is a very important political issue.
Public SafetyMr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Mohammad Mahjoub has been detained without charge, trial or conviction on a security certificate for nine years. He is the only prisoner at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. He has been on an increasingly dangerous hunger strike for 109 days over grievances related to the conditions of his detention. 
The Correctional Investigator of Canada has no jurisdiction to investigate complaints or conditions at KIHC, leaving those held there with no independent ombudsperson. 
What has the Minister of Public Safety done to resolve the hunger strike? Will the government give the correctional investigator jurisdiction at KIHC?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I believe that everyone is familiar with the fact that the individual in question has access to a wide variety of foods, yogurts, nuts and honey. Therefore, in terms of his own decisions on the actions he wishes to take, that is his decision. From our perspective as the Canadian government, our number one priority is ensuring the security and safety of Canadians, and we will continue to work to do that.
International CooperationMr. Greg Rickford (Kenora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, providing food and nutritional needs in Africa and elsewhere is a top priority for our government. 
Could the Minister of International Cooperation inform the House what this government is doing to support the hungry and malnourished people affected by drought conditions in East Africa?
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government knows about the devastating effect that the drought is having on the people in Africa. 
Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the Government of Canada will be providing $30 million to the World Food Programme in support of its effort to meet the needs of over 17 million people in Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Uganda.
 Canada is the third largest single country donor to the World Food Programme. We have met our commitment to doubling aid to Africa. Our government is committed to Africa and to make a difference effectively.
Fisheries and OceansMs. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the sea provides thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with a livelihood, however, it can quickly become a place of disaster. 
The sinking of the Sea Gypsy last week and the loss of life is the latest reminder of this. It is in the wake of this tragedy that the government is moving ahead with the decision to remove lighthouse keepers from Green Island off the south coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, despite objections from fishers and sea captains.
I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, will she stop the risk of losing more lives and reconsider this decision before it is too late?
Gail Shea: Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard's number one priority is marine safety and the men and women of our Coast Guard do a very good job of that. We certainly will not compromise marine safety. 
We are moving toward the automation of our lighthouses, like every developed country around the world. This is a gradual and careful process that will take place over several years. Marine safety service has not suffered where operations have been automated, and we certainly will not compromise the safety of mariners.
The Speaker: The Chair has notice of a number of points of order and we will commence with the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
Point of OrderMr. Luc Desnoyers (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in response to the point of order raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, I wish to inform the House that I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, that I was not present at the August 7 meeting, and that I am the Bloc Québécois labour critic.
Concerning the sale of Nortel assets, my constituency office has received numerous messages from Nortel employees—retirees and current workers, both unionized and non-unionized—and from unions. As such, I merely reported what those people told me.
The Speaker: I would like to thank the hon. member for clarifying. The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills would like to respond to the statement.
Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his explanation and I accept it. I would ask members of the House who are members of the committee to respect the rules of that committee and ensure that discussions in camera remain so.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas would also like to raise a point of order.
Yves Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order.
On September 14, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons raised a point of order claiming that Bill C-308 required royal recommendation because, and I quote, “it would require new spending”. 
According to Marleau and Montpetit, the rule about royal recommendation is this: Bills that involve the expenditure of public funds must have a royal recommendation. 
Mr. Speaker, allow us to bring to your attention the fact that Bill C-308 would enable people who have lost their jobs to benefit from an insurance fund to which they contributed, an insurance regime whose funds, need I remind the House, come from contributions made by workers and their employers.
So how can they claim that a royal recommendation is needed to spend money that workers contributed to the employment insurance fund so that they could collect benefits if they lost their jobs, when the whole purpose of the bill is to use that money to improve access to benefits and the benefits themselves? That money does not belong to the government; it belongs to workers.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my hon. colleague that the time for his intervention is not today. It should have been shortly after I gave my royal recommendation argument and just prior to the introduction and debate of the bill. It is more than a buck short and a day late, in this case several dollars, too many in fact.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you will take into consideration my original argument and, of course, his intervention today. However, we stand by our original argument that this bill does require a royal recommendation.
[Interjection]
Yves Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to something my honourable colleague said. I did notify the Speaker that we intended to respond to the government's claims in due course.
The Speaker: In any case, I am sure that the Chair will consider the arguments raised by both members about this issue.
The hon. member for Windsor West is rising on a point of order.
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, in his response to my question, the Minister of Industry referred to a report and I would ask that the report be tabled in the House, as is customary.
The Speaker: I am sure when the minister is available, we will hear a response to the hon. member's point.
The hon. member for Welland is rising on a point of order also.
[Interjection]
Mr. Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct the record.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Cambridge asserted during debate on Bill C-50 that I had never come to him to ask for help to get funds for projects in the Welland riding while he also stated that others surrounding my riding had done so. He was mistaken.
I repeatedly asked him and his government for money to help the Welland riding and I am therefore asking for unanimous consent to table letters sent by me to him on January 19 and April 3 of this year, plus his response to me dated April 7 of this year. These letters deal with funding requests important to Welland riding projects, which deserve government support.
The Speaker: I do not think the hon. member has raised a point of order. It is really a matter of debate. In that respect we will not treat it as a point of order. 
I understand he is also requesting unanimous consent to table some documents. Does the hon. member have consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 
For the last two days I have been targeted on three occasions during Members' Statements allotted time period and once today during Question Period based on a statement I made in committee. Either members across do not know how to read or they just have something to hide. 
The quote is a partial quote that came from a serious discussion during our prebudget consultations at finance committee, and it was during a seven-minute question-and-answer period with the poverty group. It had nothing to do with child care. It had nothing to do with daycare. It had nothing to do with choice. It just had to do with poverty and how we could rectify the problem of children going to school with empty stomachs.
Those members are making a mockery of this. My point has been taken out of context. I feel that if we have to have a discussion on poverty the place to do it is in the House. To accuse me of being anti-family, anti-choice, anti-daycare, anti-child care is unparliamentary. I cannot accept this going on. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to take action. 
The only people who have not taken action on child care are members across.
The Speaker: I do not know what action the Speaker can take in the circumstances. As the hon. member knows, the Speaker does not get into debate on subjects of this kind and it appears there is a debate. 
Allegations have been made, which happens from time to time on both sides of the House, in fact, with some frequency. It is difficult for the Chair to decide which statements are accurate in every case. I do have opinions sometimes, but of course I cannot express those.
In the circumstances, I suggest that perhaps the hon. member may want to sit down with some of his colleagues who are making these statements in a committee hearing and have a vigorous discussion. It could easily happen there, and it might be very rewarding for all concerned.
I will leave it at that for the moment. I do not think there is more I can do to provide the assistance the hon. member appears to want.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise also on a point of order.
During Question Period, I made reference to a statement by Premier Williams concerning sovereignty of the country. This is contained in a letter of September 11, 2009 to the Prime Minister. 
I wonder if you would find unanimous consent to table this letter in the House.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for St. John's East have the unanimous consent of the House to table this document?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.

Routine Proceedings
Privacy CommissionerThe Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual reports on the Access to Information and Privacy Act of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada for the year 2008-09.
These reports are deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Committees of the HouseMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health concerning Canada's public health care system and the sixth report regarding reports of body bags being shipped to first nations communities by Health Canada.
National Holocaust Monument ActMr. Tim Uppal (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument.
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to rise in the House to introduce my private member's bill, an act to establish a national Holocaust monument.
At present there is no public monument to honour either the victims or the Canadian survivors of the Holocaust. I believe that such a monument is important in order to remember what happens when humanity and fundamental basic rights are discarded.
The national Holocaust monument shall forever remind Canadians of one of the darkest chapters in human history and of the dangers of state-sanctioned hatred and anti-Semitism. Hitler and the Nazis extinguished the lives of millions, including Jews, disabled persons, homosexuals, political prisoners and Romas.
Even today propagators of hate, like the President of Iran, express doubts that the Holocaust was a real event. This makes it even more critical that the Holocaust continue to have a permanent place in our nation's consciousness and memory.
This monument will serve as a symbol of Canadian values and diversity as much as it will be a memorial for the millions of victims and families destroyed. This monument will be a testament to the Canadian commitment and resolve to never forget and always stand up against such atrocities.
I would like to acknowledge Laura Grosman as the driving force behind this initiative, and my colleague, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas) for his guidance, as well as members of my own caucus and the opposition who have expressed their willingness to work with me in moving this bill forward.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Citizenship ActHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-443, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (exception to the rule of inapplicability after the first generation).
Mr. Speaker, since it came into effect in April of this year, the new Citizenship Act limits citizenship by descent to the first generation born abroad. 
It is rather complex, but this means that a person born outside of Canada cannot acquire Canadian citizenship by descent from a Canadian parent, either natural or adoptive, who was also born outside of Canada and who themselves acquired Canadian citizenship by descent.
The current legislation does provide an exception to this first-generation cut-off for Canadian parents who would be working for the armed forces, the federal public administration or provincial public service.
Since Canada is a trading nation and a multilateral and multicultural nation, which has traditionally supported multilateral efforts and organizations, I believe it is in our nation's best interest to have Canadian citizens engaged in international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and so forth.
This bill proposes an amendment to section 3(5) or the Citizenship Act listing additional types of employment for which an exception could be made, such as I have mentioned right now.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsMichael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition signed by Canadians calling on the Government of Canada to work with the province of Ontario to establish a national park in the Rouge Watershed in southern Ontario, in order to protect a nationally significant portion of Canada's landscape known as the Eastern Deciduous Forest, also known as the Carolinian Forest Zone, an area that contains numerous flora and fauna on the endangered species list.
I note that in the House we adopted a motion, moved by the Hon. Pauline Browes in January 1990 calling for the same thing, namely the establishment of a park by the Canadian government in the Rouge Watershed.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions from constituents in the greater Vancouver area.
The first petition states that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that everyone has the right to life and that since January 28, 1988, Canada has had no law to protect the lives of unborn children.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the second petition addresses the long gun registry. It states that the long gun registry has not saved a single life since it was introduced. The petitioners would rather see their tax dollars keep guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs instead of trying to control law-abiding citizens.
 They call upon the House of Commons to support any legislation that will cancel the long gun registry and streamline the Firearms Act.
Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from over 400 of my constituents and others.
The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to pass legislation to protect human life from the time of conception until natural death. They point out that it has been 40 years since the last change of law on this matter and that since January 28, 1988, Canada has had no law to protect the human rights of children before birth.
This issue has divided Canadians for far too long. It is time for true parliamentarians to lead a respectful dialogue, which will reconcile all Canadians.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to table a petition signed by thousands of Canadians.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known and that more people die from asbestos than all other industrial diseases combined, yet Canada remains one of the single-largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world. They also point out that Canada spends millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry and blocking international efforts to curb its use.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for any asbestos workers or miners or the communities in which they live in, end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad, and stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the United Nations Rotterdam Convention.
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents.
As a country that respects human rights, and under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the petitioners draw attention to the right to life, even for the unborn.
 They call upon Parliament to pass legislation that will guarantee protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, because of Nortel's collapse, I would like to table a petition signed by many Canadians who would like to draw the government's attention to the following.
The petitioners note that he Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act currently do not protect the rights of all Canadian employees laid off by a company receiving pensions or long-term disability benefits during bankruptcy proceedings. The people do not have any preferred status over other unsecured creditors.
They note that employees are unlike any other creditor. They have been largely responsible for creating value for all stakeholders and unlike debit holders, banks and suppliers, they are not diversified businesses taking risks and managing tax writeoffs for financial loss.
They also note that currently under the Investment Canada Act, the federal government fails to ensure the proceeds of sales of Canadian assets are allocated to Canadian employee-related claims before funds are permitted to leave the country before these requirements are made.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament and the government to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect the rights of all Canadian employees, to ensure that employees laid off by a company receiving pensions or long-term disability benefits during bankruptcy proceedings obtain preferred creditor status over unsecured creditors and to amend the Investment Canada Act to ensure employee-related claims are paid from proceeds of Canadian assets sales before funds are permitted to leave the country.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 101.
Hon. Judy Sgro:  With respect to providing safe, quality, and affordable housing to the most vulnerable: (a) how much money will the government invest for the fiscal year of 2009-2010 in affordable housing; (b) how much investment will the government make in 2009-2010 in affordable housing specifically allocated for seniors; (c) will the government enter into new provincial agreements in order to work to facilitate the building and renovation of affordable housing units; and (d) will the government commit to make affordable housing a priority and expedite the building and maintenance of these critical units?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has a multi-pronged housing approach to facilitate access to housing. This approach has made significant contributions to the creation of an efficient housing industry; an effective system of building standards; a well-functioning housing finance system; and support for those with housing needs.
Canada’s economic action plan is strengthening Canada’s economy with a one-time investment of more than $2 billion over two years to build new, and repair existing social housing. This funding includes: $1 billion to support much needed repairs to social housing--$850 million to be cost-shared with provinces and territories, and $150 million to address needs of existing social housing which Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation administers--;$600 million for new housing and repairs to existing housing on-reserve and in the north--$400 million for on-reserve and $200 million for the north;$400 million to build more housing for seniors; and,$75 million for new housing for people with disabilities.
In response to (a), in 2009-10, it is estimated that federal housing related expenditures through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be $3.1 billion. This excludes housing related investments by other federal agencies and departments.
Annually, the Government of Canada, through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, invests an estimated $1.7 billion in support of almost 625,000 social housing units across Canada. These social housing units were committed under long-term agreements under various programs.
The Government of Canada has committed to a $1 billion investment in housing through the affordable housing initiative. Under the initiative, the federal government, through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, provides contributions to increase the supply of affordable housing, in partnership with the provinces and territories. Under bilateral agreements, the provinces and territories cost match the federal investment. Some $935 million has been committed or announced under the affordable housing initiative as of March 31, 2009, for the provision of over 42,300 units across Canada.
On September 4, 2008, the Government of Canada approved funding for housing and homelessness programs at $387.9 million per year for five years to March 31, 2014. As part of this commitment, funding for the affordable housing initiative, the renovation programs including the residential rehabilitation assistance program, and the homelessness partnering strategy were renewed at current levels for two years, to March 31, 2011. For 2009-10, this extension represents additional funding of $125 million for the affordable housing initiative and $128.1 million for the renovation programs. 
Canada’s economic action plan builds on this with an investment of more than $2 billion over two years to build new, and renovate existing social housing. For 2009-10, this represents an additional investment in housing by the federal government of more than $1 billion on affordable housing.
 In response to (b), of the $1.7 billion invested annually by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in support of almost 625,000 social housing units, approximately one-third of these units are occupied by seniors. 
Through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s suite of renovation programs, seniors will have access to funding in 2009-10 under programs such as the residential rehabilitation assistance program and home adaptations for seniors independence, HASI. Note HASI is specifically targeted to seniors. It is estimated that financial assistance of approximately $32 million will be provided to seniors in 2009-10 under the renovation programs. 
As noted above, the Government of Canada has also committed to a $1 billion investment in housing through the affordable housing initiative. Approximately 25% of the funding was directed to housing for seniors. I
In addition, Canada’s economic action plan includes $400 million over two years for affordable housing specifically targeted for seniors. In 2009-10, this represents a federal commitment of $200 million towards new affordable housing for low-income seniors who will also benefit from other mainstream affordable housing programs. The $1 billion under Canada’s economic action plan allocated for the renovation and retrofit of existing social housing will benefit the current residents of this housing. As one-third of the existing housing is estimated to serve seniors, it is estimated that in the order of one-third of the new renovation funding will also benefit seniors. 
In response to (c), existing agreements between Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and provinces and territories are being amended to implement both the September 2008 federal government decision to renew for two years the existing affordable housing initiative and renovation programs, to March 31, 2011, as well as a significant component of the economic stimulus measures announced under Canada’s economic action plan. 
In response to (d), the Government of Canada is committed to helping all Canadians find safe, adequate, and affordable housing through recent investments of close to $2 billion over five years towards housing and homelessness programs as well as more than $2 billion over the next two years toward building new or repairing existing social housing through Canada’s economic action plan. 
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Employment Insurance Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the likeable and talented member for Sherbrooke.
I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-50, because my riding has been hit hard, over the last six years, by the permanent or recurring closure of various manufacturing companies. I really wanted to say how deeply disappointed and even outraged I am when I look at this bill.
It is very disappointing for the unemployed workers who are struggling to find a job in these difficult times. I would even say that it is a shame. It looks to me like the government is using the misery of the unemployed to play political games. What it does not understand, as evidenced on several occasions, is that it underestimates the intelligence of Quebeckers. 
How can we support a bill that contains elements that nobody in the government wants to explain? This bill is denounced in Quebec by major unions, by the Conseil National des Chômeurs et Chômeuses and by the Quebec Forest Industry Council.
We would have liked to have an opportunity to discuss the bill immediately in committee to have experts and other witnesses explain to us who are those 190,000 unemployed workers targeted by this narrow, rigid and discriminatory measure.
At the briefing session provided by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development this week, only 30 minutes were dedicated to presenting the bill. It was a well-structured 30 minutes, with the officials being very closely monitored by the government. They were unable to answer my colleagues' questions about how calculations were done, which method was used to arrive at the number of 190,000 unemployed, and how they came up with an amount of $935 million. No clear response was provided by the officials who gave the briefing.
When the meeting was opened for questions, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was questioned. She too dodged the issue, so to speak. She was unable to provide an appropriate or specific answer to this question, which is in and of itself pretty simple: Who are these 190,000 unemployed Canadians to whom this measure applies.
I also read in the paper that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who is the Conservatives' political lieutenant in Quebec, commented that he could not provide any guarantees, and he too did not seem to know the answer to that important question. 
In addition, I took part in a panel discussion on CPAC with the member for Beauport—Limoilou. I am a persistent, hard-working and determined member of Parliament and, as such, I put the question to her as well. She too was unable to answer this deciding question. We would like to understand. What percentage of workers or unemployed in Quebec's forestry sector will be affected by this measure? Before voting on a bill, it is essential to know what its basis is and on what basis agreement was reached to put forward such a measure.
I want to take a few minutes to talk about a concrete example in my riding. I have spoken about it several times. There is a small town in my riding called Huntingdon that was a one-industry town supported by textile factories. Unfortunately, five or six years ago, all of the factories in this small town were forced to shut down, and hundreds of people who had built up quite a lot of seniority found themselves unemployed. These were good, loyal, competent employees with considerable expertise. This was a one-industry town, as I said. These long-tenured workers did not have access to a program for older worker adjustment because it had been cut by the Liberals a few years earlier, and that decision had been upheld by the Conservatives, despite calls from older workers who needed this bridge to help them get their dignity back and access their pension plans.
I would like to take this opportunity to salute these people, these workers who were ignored, but who remained courageous. They were incredibly strong, and I empathize with their situation. As of now, some of the older workers have participated in the retraining program; they did everything they could to try to find a new job. I know of actual cases where people have told me that despite all their efforts, they have not been able to find a job. Employers did not want them for all kinds of reasons, but for many of them, it was because of their age. I am saying it again, but I cannot say it enough. A real older worker adjustment program is still necessary, but it is still being denied by the Conservatives.
The town of Huntingdon has an extremely dynamic mayor, Stéphane Gendron, who has taken the bull by the horns and shown leadership and daring. He has stimulated the economy in his town by bringing in new businesses. A number of small and medium-sized plants have started up in his town in the past three years or so. A few plants are going concerns, but they are having problems now because of the economic crisis and the American protectionist measures. Much of what they produced was for export, and since Huntingdon is on the U.S. border, you will understand that the budget forecasts unfortunately have not materialized because of the economic crisis. 
When I look at that, I tell myself that some workers, who formerly worked in the textile mills and have been unemployed several times in the past seven years—in some cases for more than 35 weeks—could not receive benefits under the bill before us today. This means that if workers were laid off at a new plant in Huntingdon, which is doing everything it can to keep all its workers, some would not be entitled to these benefits.
Consequently, this bill is discriminatory and does not really help the long-term unemployed. The real problem, and what the Conservatives are not saying, is that we need an employment insurance system that not only is widely accessible, but also enables all unemployed workers who are having a tough time to be eligible for and receive EI benefits so that they can support their families, pay their bills and keep going while looking for another job.
This is a partisan measure that was introduced for political reasons at the expense of the unemployed. As a member of Parliament, as a citizen of my riding and as a Bloc member, I cannot support such a discriminatory bill, and the Bloc will not support it.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member had to say. The government had said 190,000 unemployed workers would benefit from the bill, at a cost of around $935 million, or almost $1 billion. The member is disputing this based on a half-hour presentation by the government.
I recommend we get the bill to the committee. We should listen to the expert witnesses and, hopefully, she can get answers to her questions and then make a judgment at that time as to whether the bill does what she wants it to or not.
We know this is not all we want to help improve our EI system, but we recognize we have a bill in front of us and we do not want to turn our backs on helping 190,000 workers, at $1 billion. We are prepared to keep working on some of our other legislation before the House, legislation dealing with other aspects of EI, which we think are important as well, but we should not throw out a measure like this just because we cannot have everything at one time.
This is a complicated series that we have to work with and we have to get improvements one at a time.
[Interjection]
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if this interpretation is correct, but I never said I disputed the figures, that is, 190,000 unemployed workers at a cost of $938 million. I said there were some questions about where those figures came from. Whoever provides figures like that must be able to justify them.
I was told that the figures were not explained at the briefing session. How were these numbers reached, when the calculation appears so complicated that not one minister can explain it? Before we support a bill that claims to benefit 190,000 unemployed workers, it would have been nice—in fact crucial—to have these very important, specific answers. The Bloc Québécois is not known for being satisfied with easy explanations. 
The government could have introduced quick measures to really help the unemployed, but it did not do so. The legislative process was not needed to bring in such a measure. A simple pilot project could have been introduced, as the Conservative government has done in the past. As the member said, that could have helped those unemployed workers immediately. But that was not what they did. I think we are seeing political games being played on the backs of unemployed workers.
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her remarks. I would like her to answer the following question.
This measure for long-tenured workers, along with others already introduced in our economic action plan, will no doubt benefit men and women in her riding, people who truly need it.
If my colleague votes against this bill, does she realize she will be voting against the workers in her own riding who really need this extra money?
[Interjection]
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the parliamentary secretary. The people I represent are asking me today to ask questions of the government. Considering what is happening in my riding with the numerous permanent or recurring closures of manufacturing companies, I am unable to say at this time if this measure will help my constituents. There is no need to worry about my ability to explain the situation to my constituents and to justify my position. I have always done so, and I probably do it well since they elected me twice.
I would like to tell my colleague that people often come to see me, every week, to tell me that they qualify for employment insurance but do no receive their benefits within a reasonable length of time. We often see people who have filed their application in June and are still waiting for their first cheque in September. It would be very easy to change that—it is a question of bureaucracy—so that people who qualify for benefits receive their cheque in a timely manner. 
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry for her intervention.
When I spoke at the beginning of the week, I forgot to mention something. September 14 marked my 11th anniversary as an MP and I wanted to say that I am proud to represent the people of my riding. I am ready to represent them for as long as necessary and I am ready to fight in this House for justice, particularly with respect to employment insurance.
Before being elected, I was an accountant. I was self-employed for more than 20 years. I had people working for me and my clients were employers and employees. Over the years, I saw the deterioration of the unemployment insurance system, as it was then called. I was upset by that. I thought that we should establish an employment insurance system—that was the term I used—to help the unemployed return to the job market quickly and regain their dignity.
Over the years, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, I watched the employment insurance program deteriorate. I also saw some people take advantage of the program. They were employees who sometimes even conspired with their employers. I saw this going on.
Observing all this, I said to myself that there was a big problem with the government. These things are easy to spot. Rather than dealing with those who defraud the employment insurance system, be they employers or employees, it was attacking the system. 
Today, it is still not uncommon for those who have lost their jobs, who find themselves unemployed and in a really difficult situation, to almost be perceived as crooks trying to defraud the system. But there is no need to defraud the system today because, quite often, it is the system that prevents the unemployed from collecting employment insurance benefits. Based on all the changes that have taken place over the years—it has not been all that long—and the different regions with varying rates of unemployment, people do not receive the same benefits or have the same period of coverage. 
I remember something that happened in my riding a few months or perhaps a year ago. People living in Sherbrooke and working in Magog, some 30 kilometres away, commuted morning and evening, racking up extra transportation costs. When the Magog company closed its doors, the people who lived in Magog, which was in a different administrative region, received additional benefits for a longer benefit period. Some of the Sherbrooke workers had a hard time even qualifying, and those who did qualify received lower benefits. But they had all worked at the same place. Some had even spent more of their own money just to get to work. 
It looks like the system needs a complete overhaul, particularly given the current economic situation, the unemployment rate and, above all, data from the OECD suggesting that the unemployment rate will probably reach 10%. But the government has chosen temporary fixes and is trying to look good by making a lot of noise about how it is going to give unemployed workers additional weeks, when some have not even collected one red cent yet.
Basically, I cannot be against the fact that people will be able to receive additional weeks of benefits. But I seriously wonder why the government has introduced this measure. It is likely just a bit of political window dressing, to tell unemployed workers that they can receive five to 20 additional weeks of benefits if they have worked for a very long time, they have not received benefits and they have paid premiums without getting anything in return. Yet there are people who have paid into EI who are not receiving anything today. We have seen this in the forestry industry. We are also seeing it among seasonal workers.
When I look at that, I seriously wonder and I feel that something is not right. The first thought that comes to mind is that the government's inability to pinpoint the real problems, the real needs, the most urgent needs, is equalled only by its failure to address those problems and those urgent needs.
Earlier I mentioned that the system has steadily deteriorated. Take the POWA, for example. At one time there was a mechanism that allowed older workers to transition to a dignified, honourable retirement if, after working for a company their entire lives—35 or 40 years—they were laid off and offered the option to retrain. Some workers can be retrained, but not others. The government has not yet addressed this problem. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have done anything. 
Now we have new measures that have nothing to do with what workers really need. Sure, the Conservatives added five weeks of benefits at the end of the regular benefit period, clearly in the hope that the economic situation would improve. But people need those benefits now. When you lose your job, you need help right away, not necessarily at the end of your benefit period. If only there was at least a longer benefit period. But even then, there would have been no need for the extra five weeks.
I do not know what these government representatives must feel when they see the unemployed workers. But I do not think this government is doing everything it can to make the EI system fairer and more accessible to everyone. I do not think there are people who wake up in the morning and say they cannot wait to be laid off so they can take advantage of the employment insurance system. First of all, no one wants to be laid off to go onto EI. Everyone knows the state it is in and who has access to it.
I am being told that my time is almost up, but I would like to add two things, in particular about the sharing of information among different departments. Again, we can see how the government has been acting. When the Bloc Québécois initiated sessions to identify individuals who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement and who were not receiving it, we would have liked information from the Canada Revenue Agency to be accessible by the old age pension system. Thus, after filing their income tax return, someone who is eligible for the guaranteed income supplement could easily receive it. The government made billions of dollars off this. In fact, for several years, it did not give information to people and it made billions of dollars by taking money from the employment insurance fund.
Now, it is a matter of sharing information. The government did not want to integrate the systems at the time, and today, it is prepared to get information from each of them. You know very well that public servants are overwhelmed on employment insurance issues. It takes more and more time for people to get their benefits, and now we want to overload the system for a short period of time to go way back to collect information. This would be yet another temporary measure that does not solve the problems with EI and would cause more work for public servants.
The Conservatives should have listened to the Bloc's recommendations. Then they would have been better prepared to meet the urgent needs of unemployed workers.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Bloc has worked very hard on the whole issue of EI. In fact, it has a bill before the House which would attempt to remove the two-week waiting period, which, by the way, the NDP certainly supports. 
However, this is a bill that is aimed at 190,000 workers, a billion dollars, and is intended to help in another way to solve the EI problem. There is nothing stopping the Bloc members from supporting this bill in principle, getting it to committee, trying to make the amendments they want at committee, supporting the bill and getting it through, and at the same time working on getting their existing legislation through the House.
We too have bills on EI before the House. We are not going to give up on those bills just because the government wants to pass this one. If this bill passes, we are going to keep working on these bills that are parallel to this one. Why would the Bloc not do the same thing?
[Interjection]
Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, recently, the Bloc Québécois offered to put this bill on the fast track, but the government did not want that.
Personally, I remain convinced that the employment insurance system can be improved in a much more efficient manner. The debate and the work in committee will allow us to do that. I am confident that someone across the floor, on the government side, will finally understand. Common sense is important. The Conservatives will have to start using their common sense. Hopefully, they will seize the opportunity with this bill and start showing that they do have some common sense.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and for his clarity. I would like to ask him a specific question.
This morning, I saw the headlines in the newspapers saying that the Liberals wanted to speed up the adoption of the bill in order to annoy the NDP. The Liberals hold a grudge against the NDP. I was surprised to read that. In fact, the Liberals oppose the bill for partisan reasons, not because of their convictions. I would like the member to tell me what he thinks of the Liberal position on employment insurance. I think he has much to say about that.
[Interjection]
Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me to say everything I would have to say about the Liberals' position, and what they have done or not done while in government. I came to this place 11 years ago, in 1998. At the time, the hot topic, the most popular one, was employment insurance. It was a topic of discussion 11 years ago. I once told colleagues who had been here for a while that, while EI was admittedly an important issue, it was raised rather often. In light of the answers provided by the Liberal Party at the time, I came to realize that questions had to be put repeatedly.
I will never forget the time when the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien, answered a question about employment insurance. He said he was eligible for benefits. A minister gestured to him that he did not. Then, he indicated that perhaps he did not need any. In itself, this goes to show that, from the Prime Minister to the then human resources minister, the Liberals were completely out of touch with what a good employment insurance scheme for the people should be. The economy was doing well then, so much so that the government could afford to pay down the debt on the backs of the unemployed, even though the unemployment rate was not very high at the time. The fact remains that the money used to pay down the debt belonged to the unemployed. The Conservative government will run up a $57 billion debt. I am afraid to think about what the next—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue.
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill, which will extend regular benefits for long-tenured workers who are unemployed. Many such workers have a hard time finding a new job after working for the same employer for most of their working lives.
I am particularly pleased to take part in today's debate because it allows me to speak on behalf of people who have worked hard their entire lives, who have paid their taxes and their EI premiums, and who have never or rarely had to rely on support from the government.
For the purposes of this new measure, long-tenured workers are defined as those who have paid into the EI system for years, who have rarely had to rely on it, and who come from all sectors of the economy. It is estimated that approximately two-thirds of those who pay into the EI system across Canada correspond to this definition of long-tenured workers. A little more than one-third of those who have lost their jobs across Canada since the end of January and have filed a claim for EI benefits are long-tenured workers. Thanks to their hard work and commitment to their employers, these workers have contributed to the success and prosperity of Canada and Quebec. 
In a time of greater economic prosperity, these workers could have finished up their career with the same employer, eventually enjoyed a well deserved retirement and benefited from the corporate pension plan they have contributed to for decades. However, as we all know, the current economic situation is a problem. The current global downturn has devastated economies all over the world, and Canada is no exception.
We only have to look at the morning papers or watch the evening news to see that another company is cutting jobs, laying off employees or closing its doors. Although such events are sad for our country and the communities where they occur, they are a tragedy for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. These are very serious circumstances for long-tenured workers who must now face a job market that has changed dramatically and often requires completely different skill sets than they possess. 
Although long-tenured workers are being laid off throughout the country, certain Quebec communities have been particularly affected because they are dependent on manufacturing and forestry, two industrial sectors that have been hit hard. For that reason, as a Quebecker, I am proud to see the government taking decisive action to ensure that long-tenured workers in Quebec and the rest of Canada will obtain the additional assistance needed to face the challenges.
Therefore, what proposals does this bill contain and why are they so important to workers who find themselves in this situation? In a nutshell, with this bill the government will provide additional assistance to people who have paid employment insurance premiums for a long time and who, up to now, have not often collected benefits. To be eligible, a claimant must have paid into the system at least 30% of maximum annual premiums in at least 7 of 10 calendar years. They must not have collected regular employment insurance benefits for more than 35 weeks during the past 5 years.
The definition allows up to 35 weeks of regular benefits during the past five years because, in recent years, workers from some industries, including manufacturing and forestry, have received employment insurance benefits during temporary work stoppages.
It is estimated that approximately 190,000 workers, one-quarter of whom live in Quebec, would benefit from this temporary measure.
Once promulgated, this legislation would extend by 5 to 20 weeks the benefits for long-tenured workers, depending on the number of years they have worked and paid EI premiums.
For workers to benefit from this measure as soon as possible, it would be accessible to claimants who are long-tenured workers and whose benefit period was established on January 4, 2009, or nine months before this bill comes into force, whichever is later. The measure would apply to all claims from long-tenured workers established before September 11, 2010, which means that the extended benefits could be paid until the fall of 2011.
This is good news for people who have spent most of their lives working for the same employer in Quebec or in the rest of Canada.
As useful as this new initiative is, it is just one element in a much wider effort to improve the fairness of the employment insurance system and its ability to help workers and their families deal with the present economic downturn.
Canada's economic action plan contains several measures to provide employment insurance benefits to individuals for a longer period of time, together with more efficient service.
The career transition assistance initiative may be very valuable for long-tenured workers.
It extends the benefit period for up to two years while long-tenured workers participate in long-term training. In other words, it enables eligible long-tenured workers to access employment insurance more quickly if they use some or all of their severance pay to cover the cost of training. 
The work-sharing program also helps people remain in the active population by providing employment insurance income support to workers who agree to work fewer hours per week while their employer recovers from the economic crisis.
In Canada's economic action plan, we have changed the program to give employers more flexible options to help plan their recovery. 
In addition, the agreements can be extended by up to 14 more weeks to optimize the benefits during the economic slowdown.
With this program, employers will be able to avoid hiring new employees and retraining laid-off workers once the company recovers, and employees will be able to continue working, thereby keeping their skills up to date.
As of September 6, 2009, some 165,000 Canadians were benefiting from more than 5,800 work-sharing agreements across Canada.
In addition, as part of the economic action plan, we are investing $60 million more over three years in the targeted initiative for older workers to help workers between 55 and 64 years of age update their skills and gain the work experience they need to get new jobs.
To broaden the scope of the initiative, communities with fewer than 250,000 inhabitants are now eligible for funding.
Under the economic action plan, the government is also providing an additional $1 billion over two years under existing labour market development agreements with provinces and territories to help employment insurance clients acquire the skills they need to get and keep new jobs.
Also, under the strategic training and transition fund, we are investing $500 million over two years to help individuals benefit from training and other support measures, whether or not they qualify for employment insurance. 
Since the provinces and territories are in a better position to meet the needs of their own labour markets, this money was delivered through the existing labour market agreements. 
 Furthermore, the action plan offers an apprenticeship completion grant of $2,000 to apprentices who successfully complete their apprenticeship training in a red seal trade. That is in addition to the existing apprenticeship incentive grant.
Through these two grants, an apprentice could receive $4,000. Up to 20,000 Canadians could benefit from this brand new grant.
The Government of Canada also protects jobs and supports struggling companies in key sectors of our economy. This applies to sectors such as forestry, agriculture and mining, sectors that are particularly vital to Quebec, given their large share of the Quebec economy.
We are helping them through the community adjustment fund, which will provide $1 billion over two years to help promote the economic diversification of communities affected by struggling local industries. 
 The government is also supporting aboriginal people in Canada with a $100 million investment over three years in the aboriginal skills and employment partnership program. This program offers job training in sectors such as tourism, construction and natural resources, through partnerships between employers and aboriginal organizations.
 In addition, the aboriginal skills and training strategic investment fund gives aboriginal people access to important skills training so that they can fully participate in the economic recovery.
Lastly, we recognize the importance of temporary income support for people who are experiencing difficulties, and we are extending regular employment insurance benefits by five weeks—the maximum length of benefits in regions with high unemployment has been extended from 45 to 50 weeks.
All of this means that the Government of Canada will spend some $5.8 billion more than it did last year on employment insurance benefits for Canadians.
It gives me great satisfaction to note that recent statistics have confirmed the effectiveness of the EI system in reacting to Quebec's changing economy. This is proven by the fact that more than 70% of Quebec workers can access the EI system more easily now than one year ago. This is due to the variable entrance requirement, which gives the EI system the flexibility needed to automatically react to changes in local labour markets. When unemployment rates increase, eligibility criteria are relaxed and the duration of benefits is extended.
These standards are adjusted every month, to take into account the latest local unemployment rates. So, the amount of assistance provided increases as the unemployment rate rises, which means that funds are directed to those regions and communities that need it most.
These are just some of the measures introduced by this government to help Canadians and Quebeckers cope with the current global recession. However, despite everything we have done, there is much more to do, such as ensuring that long-tenured workers obtain the additional weeks of support they deserve, and need, to find another job during this difficult time. That is the goal of Bill C-50 before us here today.
Recognizing the importance of this matter, I will vote in favour of this bill, so that long-tenured workers can obtain the assistance and support they need. I strongly encourage all members of the other parties to do the same.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that it is very important for Quebec, but it is also very important for Newfoundland and Labrador. Why? Because we are talking about forestry.
The member talks about long-tenured forestry workers. I want to clarify something with this bill when he talks about long-tenured workers because that seems to be the message we are getting from the government.
There is one classification of forestry workers who are considered long-tenured and they are the loggers. On average, they claim two or three months of EI benefits per year. They have been loggers for a good deal of time, in some cases up to 30 years, on average 10 to 15 years. Certainly, for this particular legislation, over the past five years, they have accumulated more than the required 36 hours.
Here is the problem. I would consider loggers to be long-tenured, but they do not qualify under this particular legislation. What am I supposed to say to these individuals who say, “The Conservatives told us it was fair”? It is, however, not fair to these people. Perhaps specifically, the member from Quebec would like to tell me how I am supposed to deal with that situation?
[Interjection]
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, forestry is a very sensitive sector and one that was deeply affected by the global economic crisis. As we know, it is all about markets. Demand for wood products is down and so are prices. This has created tremendous difficulties for many firms, both upstream and downstream from the industry. This has seriously affected those who cut and transport logs, the suppliers and others.
Some mills in the forestry sector have had to close and may one day reopen. Those who have worked there all their lives—for 10, 15, 20 or even 30 years—and who are just about to leave the job market because they are at the end of their working lives—not their actual lives—know that their benefits are about to run out.
Long-tenured workers will receive an additional 5 to 20 weeks and benefit from other measures, such as workforce training, to help them find a new job or wait for the mill to reopen. Those 20 weeks are of vital importance to these workers.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the hon. member's premise that he is first and foremost a Quebecker and proud to stand for that within the Conservative Party. Personally, I cannot accept that because, in my riding of Manicouagan, we have workers who become unemployed from time to time due to the fact that industries in our region rely heavily on natural resources. There is the forestry industry, the fishing industry and the tourism industry. Legislation cannot divide unemployed workers into the good and the bad. That cannot be done.
The bill states that claimants are not eligible for benefits if they have not contributed at least 30% of the maximum annual premium in 7 of the past 10 years, or in 12 of the past 15 years. The same bill also states that claimants who were paid more than 35 weeks of benefits over the past 5 years, or an average of 7 weeks of benefits per year, are not eligible either.
Who is this bill meant to help, then? It is directly geared toward Ontario's automotive industry, an industry that has seldom had to make massive layoffs, although it is having to do so during this economic crisis. It is tailored to fit the automotive industry in Ontario and does nothing for the workers in the riding of Manicouagan and many other parts of Quebec.
[Interjection]
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that I am proud to be a Quebecker and to sit on this side of the House to be able to really help Quebeckers.
As far as seasonal workers, like those in the tourism and fishing industries who work during the summer, let me tell my colleague that they are still eligible for every other EI measure. There is no problem in that regard. The bill is aimed at long-tenured workers whose EI benefits are running out. They will get 5 to 20 more weeks. That is what being a proud Quebecker is all about. That is what serving Quebeckers means.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused by the approach that my friends in the Liberal Party are taking on this issue. While they were the government for 13 years, they pretty much rammed the EI system and restricted the number of people who could collect. They built up a big surplus in the EI system and then used that $57 billion surplus to pay down the debt. Now they have decided that they want to make improvements in the EI system and have been trying to introduce legislation in the last little while.
Finally, the government has come up with an approach that would deal with 190,000 workers at a cost of $1 billion. We have a choice between supporting that or causing a $300 million election and the Liberal Party has chosen the $300 million election. That to me does not make sense if the Liberals really want to improve the EI system.
[Interjection]
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
My answer it that this measure for long-tenured workers will cost in excess of $900 million, close to $1 billion, but all the initiatives for EI included in our economic action plan amount to $5.8 billion more for Canadians, for mothers and fathers who need this money this year.
That is what we call taking the initiative on this side of the House. That is what being a proud Quebecker is all about.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the answers the parliamentary secretary gave to the member for Manicouagan, and I was completely dumbfounded.
What I understood is that he was saying that a worker who is unfortunate enough to be a seasonal worker, to work in the tourism or forestry industry, will have access to regular EI benefits, but not to the extended benefit period. The government is telling them, “too bad“. They are not fortunate enough to work in a factory that has never shut down. 
It is inconceivable that a member from Quebec is in such denial about the job situation in the regions of Quebec. There are many seasonal workers there. Furthermore, this year, there was probably less work in some regions because tourism was affected by the economic crisis.
How can the parliamentary secretary be so stubborn about his position when he knows very well that many unemployed workers in the regions of Quebec will not be eligible for this measure?
[Interjection]
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that workers in the tourism and fishing sectors and other seasonal industries have surely been working this summer and are thus eligible for EI.
Our bill is aimed at long-tenured workers, people who lost their jobs after working for 10, 15 or 20 years for the same employer. Because of the economic crisis, their jobs are no longer available or their plant is closed indefinitely. Accordingly, these workers will receive between 5 and 20 more weeks of EI benefits.
These people are men and women, fathers and mothers who really need the benefits. We are pleased to put forward this bill for them.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during this global recession Canadians are looking for a couple of things. First of all, they are looking for a government that responds in times of need, and Bill C-50 shows that this government is very responsive. We also want an insurance program that is going to work. There is no use putting something together that is not going to work. 
I wonder if small businesses in the member's constituency are speaking the same language as they are in mine. The CFIB and others have told us not to fall for the 360-hour work year, 45-day work year, because it would be too costly to employers, to the economy, to productivity and everything else. Is my colleague hearing that message?
[Interjection]
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer my colleague's question.
In my riding, business people are very dynamic. Despite the present economic crisis, the unemployment rate is approximately 5%. Employers keep their employees as long as possible in spite of the economic crisis because they have a hard time finding new employees. When employees leave a job, they find another job in another company. In my region, things are going well in the private sector because the job market is very strong.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I particularly want the opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-50 because it has such a profound effect on the working people in my riding. 
I want to start with a bit of history. When the Liberals gutted the EI system, and I mean gutted--they cut and hacked and slashed the EI system to the point where it was a shadow of its former self and completely ineffective as an income security machine--it took $20 million a year out of my riding in income maintenance that used to flow from the EI system. 
In that one riding of downtown Winnipeg, $20 million a year of federal money that used to flow into my riding no longer did because they changed the rules so that no one qualified anymore. Then they started milking it like a cash cow, spending the money that was obviously going to accumulate. Workers had no choice but to pay into the program, but nothing was getting paid out. They spent that money that was supposed to be for income maintenance of unemployed workers on the--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. On a point of order, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
[Interjection]
Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, bilingualism no longer exists at the Olympic Games, and it seems to have temporarily disappeared from the House of Commons, as well. I would ask the interpreters to push the right button so we can hear the translation. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): I am not sure that is a point of order. Apparently there is a problem with the translation.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre can continue. All his colleagues can hear him now.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will try to speak slowly for the translators, if that is the issue. Some members are saying that I should start from the beginning, but in the interest of time I really cannot.
I thought it was important that we revisit some of the historical context of the need to reform the EI system, because when the Liberals gutted the system they made a devastating impact in the riding I represent.
There was $20 million a year of federal money that used to come into my low-income riding. The same was true for Winnipeg North, represented by my colleague. She lost $25 million a year. Some ridings in Newfoundland lost $50 million a year of unemployment insurance money that used to come into their communities and was spent locally.
The Liberals gutted that system. They changed the rules to the point that virtually nobody qualified anymore. It ceased being an insurance program and it became an income tax again. It was a payroll tax that they used as a cash cow to pay for anything they could think of.
This is why we welcome this opportunity to try to flow some of that unemployment insurance money into the pockets of unemployed workers, where it properly belongs. That was the intent, purpose and mandate of the unemployment insurance fund. It was to provide income maintenance, not to be a cash cow for the Liberal Party. We wonder where that $54 million of accumulated surplus went. This is the shocking thing.
 Now we have an opportunity to do the right thing. We have workers who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed due to the economic downturn. Their unemployment insurance is going to run out. The last thing we want to do is have an election now. That would preclude the possibility of any EI reform, because we would be on the hustings instead of in Parliament facing the legitimate problems our constituents are dealing with.
We welcome the opportunity to make Parliament work. It is said so often here that it is almost a cliché, but that is why we were sent here. If we lose sight of that, we do not deserve to be here. I can say with complete comfort and confidence that we are doing the right thing by enabling this $1 billion to flow into the pockets of the unemployed.
That is not to say that we will stop seeking unemployment insurance and other program reforms. The NDP has 12 private members' bills in the system calling for the reform of various other aspects of EI and those will percolate through the system. We can debate them, bring them to committee and discuss them, but that should not preclude moving forward with one positive development that we do have the power to initiate now to get that money flowing into unemployed people's pockets.
The unemployment insurance system is just that: an insurance program. It is mandatory. The problem with the system now is eligibility. What would one think of a house insurance program that a person was forced to pay into, yet if their house burned down they have a 40% chance of being able to collect any benefit? One would not call that an insurance program at all. They would want the head of the insurance agent who sold them that worthless insurance policy.
That is almost how unemployed people feel in this country today. They are forced to pay into this employment insurance system and they have about a 40% chance of being able to collect anything should the unfortunate reality of finding themselves unemployed come about.
The system is broken; the wheels have fallen off it. The heart and soul of it was ripped out by the Liberal Party in the most ruthless and heartless period of Canadian history, where they undermined and gutted virtually every social program by which we define ourselves as Canadians. They ripped the heart out of it.
We gave them the opportunity for far too long to rule this country. They left no stone unturned to undermine every social program by which we define ourselves as Canadians. They were the most neo-conservative, right-wing government in the history of Canada, and they should be condemned for it.
I do not use the terms lightly when I say that they were gutless, heartless and spineless, and they are exhibiting the same characteristics today. They are often mean-spirited in their development of policies. We gave them far, far too long.
The really unforgivable thing about the Liberals is how they chose to pay down the deficit on the backs of the unemployed by milking the unemployment insurance system like some cash cow.
The second thing they did was to take the $30 billion surplus from the public service pension plan. They did not share that with the beneficiaries of the plan. They did not share that with public servants. They took the whole $30 billion by legislative edict. The last thing Marcel Massé did in this House of Commons before he slunk out of here with his tail between his legs was that he grabbed the whole $30 billion out of the public service pension plan so they could put it into their Liberal slush funds and do God knows what with it. That is how they paid down the deficit when they were given the opportunity.
This is why I say with great pride that I am going to do what I can to put $1 billion back into the pockets of working people that was denied them by the last regime in this House of Commons.
We have an opportunity today. The last thing we want to do is delay the flow of this money by having another election at this time, because it would be a guaranteed eight weeks before anybody could take any action to assist people whose employment insurance is running out.
We are going to do the right thing. We are going to get that money flowing at the earliest possible opportunity.
[Interjection]
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the member for Winnipeg Centre's speech, and I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the House to give him an extra half hour to continue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Does the minister have unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
When we return to this matter, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will have 10 minutes.

Private Members' Business
Made in Canada ActMs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):  moved that Bill C-392, An Act respecting the use of government procurements and transfers to promote economic development, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, the current debate on protectionism, trade and the U.S. buy American policy has been framed around the claim that protectionism was the cause of the Great Depression and that the Government of the United States is moving dangerously toward greater protectionism.
In fact, before they even knew the details of the buy American provision in the U.S. Congress stimulus bill, the Conservatives were out defending free trade and criticizing American protectionism.
The Canadian government acted aggressively against the U.S. Democratic government's stimulus plan despite the fact that existing U.S. law already created local content requirements under the buy American act which dates back to the early 1930s.
A small fraction of the procurement in the buy American bill would have been under federal U.S. jurisdiction. Most of the money was destined for the states and cities to spend under their own local procurement rules.
The bill I have introduced is straightforward instituting a made in Canada procurement policy for the federal government and its agencies. The bill would ensure that Canadian companies are given the first opportunity to bid on federal government contracts that are not restricted by international trade agreements such as NAFTA or the WTO.
This approach is reasonable, populist and consistent with the approaches taken by the U.S. and most European countries. In fact, a May 2008 poll revealed that an astounding nine out of ten people think the government should buy Canadian made equipment when it comes to key public purchases because Canadian communities should benefit from federal procurement.
The current piecemeal approach should be replaced by a clear, transparent buy Canadian policy, which is precisely what my bill would achieve. The bill would go a long way toward building new markets for Canadian suppliers, strengthening sustainability and fulfilling our environmental commitments, while encouraging Canadian entrepreneurship.
The bill would help support sectors in crisis, including auto, steel and forestry, and replace the governments ad hoc approach with a consistent policy.
Local spending of stimulus investments is necessary for effective job creation and job protection. Canadians expect their government to invest their tax dollars wisely. By investing in our communities, we can support local jobs and generate more tax revenue that in turn supports our families and national services. 
Ironically, while the Prime Minister and some premiers have been busy attacking U.S. protectionism, many cities, provinces and even the federal government itself already apply buy Canadian local content policies for procurement on a case by case basis.
The government and its Liberal allies want a deregulated, unmanaged, let the market decide approach to trade. That quite simply places Canadian jobs and sectors at risk. Conservatives are unwilling to defend Canadian workers and industries, like manufacturing, forestry, auto or steel. They say that it contravenes our trade obligations. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A comprehensive review of Canada's obligations under WTO agreements and NAFTA reveal that buy Canadian policies adopted by municipal, provincial and federal governments would not violate any international or internal trade agreements. In short, Canadian government have far more room to adopt these policies than is often believed.
Provincial and municipal governments can specify levels of Canadian content for purchases and, under some conditions, even restrict tendering entirely to Canadian made goods. The ability to adopt comprehensive buy Canadian policies applies not only in the high profile area of public transit but to all purchases; everything from garbage trucks to office furniture, uniforms, construction materials and more.
For the federal government, made in Canada options are much more constrained by international procurement rules under WTO, NAFTA and other international trade agreements. Successive federal governments have given away many rights under different trade agreements but they have also explicitly maintained rights in certain areas. The exceptions include federal transfers to provinces and municipalities that do not fall under international trade agreements. 
There are also two broad areas of exemptions under NAFTA: one for the purchase of goods for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of National Defence, and the other for goods related general federal government procurement, including things such as shipbuilding and repair, urban rail and transportation equipment and materials, communications equipment, research and development, health and social services, financial and related services, utilities and agricultural products. Smaller contracts are also exempt, in particular, those under $28,000. 
However, despite these exemptions, millions of tax dollars have been spent on acquiring goods and services from foreign countries. I have some upsetting examples.
In 2006, the federal government approved nearly $13 billion in defence and aerospace purchases, mainly from the United States.
In 2006, the Canadian census was outsourced to an American company, Lockheed Martin, which is part of the American military industrial complex.
In 2007, the federal government purchased new intercity buses from Germany, bypassing two highly qualified Canadian firms.
In 2008, the uniforms for our Canadian Olympic team were outsourced to China.
Between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008, 466 contracts were awarded under the NAFTA threshold of $28,000 to vendors in the United States. In the same time period, the federal government awarded 47 competitive contracts, valued at over $47 million, to vendors in the United States for communications equipment, equipment that is exempt from NAFTA.
We need to consider what these contracts meant to Canadians, like workers in Winnipeg. The Prime Minister and the federal Conservative government chose to sell out over 1,000 Winnipeg workers for a savings of 0.5% on a bus contract, or about $2,000 per bus; the cost of a set of tires. Motor Coach Industries has been making military buses for more than 60 years but the Conservative government gave the contract to a German company, and those buses were built abroad. Jobs were lost and opportunity was lost for the price of a set of tires.
I believe the majority of Canadians would like to see their tax dollars invested in Canada. There are many business organizations that also support this initiative. 
The Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which represents 57,000 businesses across the province, strongly endorses a policy that mandates Canadian content levels for publicly funded mass transit and transportation projects.
The Canadian Manufacturers &amp; Exporters has also publicly supported the need for the Canadian government to apply rules and regulations that favour Canadian content when it funds infrastructure and mass transit projects under its authority or under the authority of provinces and municipalities. 
The Canadian Auto Workers have argued in favour of a made in Canada policy. It maintains that Canadian citizens expect their governments to spend their tax dollars wisely. They also expect all levels of government to invest in their communities. 
The economic benefits of spending at home are well-known. These expenditures support jobs, fund payrolls and generate much needed tax revenues.
Tragically, today many Canadians are faced with an uncertain economic future. Well-paying, secure manufacturing jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate. More than 350,000 have been lost since the current government took office. Ensuring that our tax dollars are spent to support good jobs in our own communities just makes good economic sense. When we are facing a recession, the need for action is urgent.
Many countries are investing domestically. Some of Canada's largest trading partners are included. Member countries of the European Union, Japan, China, Mexico and the United States all have local procurement policies.
Under the buy American act, U.S. law requires 60% domestic content and domestic final assembly for federally funded public transit purchases and 100% domestic content for material inputs like iron and steel.
The Americans, the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Japanese and most European countries understand that investing in local communities makes good economic sense. According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, each $1 billion in new infrastructure creates 11,000 jobs; more than twice as many jobs as the equivalent tax cut. 
Canada needs to take a lesson from our trading partners. By investing our tax dollars in Canadian companies and investing in Canadian jobs, we can dig ourselves out of this recession faster. With a focus on made in Canada products, we can generate not only more jobs but an increase in tax revenue that can be used to pay down our deficit or reinvest again in Canadian workers. By investing in ourselves, we can build the strong communities that support families.
Many Canadian companies across this great nation would benefit from made in Canada legislation. In my riding of London—Fanshawe, the manufacturing sector has been particularly hard hit with cutbacks, shift reductions and even plant closures. There are companies fighting through this economic downturn that would benefit from a boost in government investments in Canadian companies, companies like Sciencetech, a designer and manufacturer of scientific instruments. Sciencetech has been operating in my riding since 1985. 
Purifics, an engineering firm that provides environmentally smart engineering systems and products for both industry and municipal government, has been headquartered in my riding since 1993. 
Trojan Technologies is a water treatment technology company that builds disinfection systems for municipal waste water and drinking water for both municipal and commercial applications, as well as industrial applications.
Those are Canadian companies that bring benefit and could benefit from the passing of this made in Canada bill and there are many more companies across Canada that could also benefit from such legislation.
 Navistar in Chatham could have saved local jobs if the federal government had not awarded a military truck contract to a firm in Texas. 
The Prime Minister has spent the past several days in Washington meeting with the President of the United States and the American Congress. He is there, apparently, to try to persuade the president to change his stance on the buy American policy, a policy that has been in place, as I said, since 1933. I believe the Prime Minister is wasting his energy. He should focus his efforts and those of his government and make Canada's businesses a priority. No other country will make Canadian business a priority if Canada does not.
The Canadian manufacturers and exporters argue that:
 In spite of NAFTA and the WTO’s Agreement on Government Procurement, which provide fair treatment to signatory nations when granting certain contracts, the U.S. government succeeds in promoting manufacturing on U.S. soil while respecting these agreements. ...restrictions exist regarding a manufacturing presence in the U.S. for all projects funded by the U.S. government in the sectors of mass transit, airports or road construction. These policies help meet economic development goals by striving to maximize the impact of government funds on U.S. industry. 
 However, Canadian companies do not benefit from the same support from their own governments, even though Canada has economic development goals which are similar to those of its main trading partner, and even though it is important for Canadian companies to have support that is similar to the one obtained by foreign companies from their governments in order to be competitive on a global scale. Too often, international agreements to which Canada is a signatory have been estimated to be restrictive regarding the actions it can take, to the point where it is powerless. However, Canada does have a scope of concern that is does not use, to the detriment of companies that choose to design and manufacture their products here. 
 Because of restrictions based on U.S. content...[and] the absence of such rules in Canada, Canadian manufacturers [are going to the U.S.] 
This explains, in part, why the Canadian presence of companies is so intense along the U.S. northern border.
Those companies can bid on contracts on both sides of the border. Our Canadian companies are precluded from the U.S. market. These are jobs that have moved to the United States because we have a timid government.
My bill is not protectionist. It simply updates our laws to reflect those of our major trading partners. I want to give Canadian companies the same opportunities as their American counterparts. I want to stop penalizing companies for staying in Canada. I believe that the point of international trade agreements such as NAFTA and my bill is within limits of those.
If my bill had been in place before the current recession, we could have protected those jobs in Winnipeg, at Navistar, Lear, Sterling Trucks in St. Thomas and Siemens in London. I want job security for Canadian workers, for the people of my community, which is the purpose of my bill. I ask the members of the House to support it for the sake of our families, workers and Canadian companies and do what other nations do. Let us use our resources for the benefit of this country.
Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member for London—Fanshawe and her new-found love of infrastructure spending.
I am an entrepreneur in my other life and I agree that Canadian companies should sell their products. They should sell their products because they are the best at building their products. They should sell their products because they go out and market them.
However, I heard a new-found love for local spending on infrastructure in the member's speech. I have seen her in her riding and, indeed, she mentioned a couple of companies in my riding. She has been in my riding. She will stand wherever she can behind a great big cheque that supports local infrastructure and the growth of companies in our country.
However, I would like to ask her how she squares that circle. Back home she is an infrastructure champion but here in the House her and her party voted against every dollar that we put forward in the economic action plan. She is a champion behind a podium here in the House but—
[Interjection]
Scott Simms: Not any more.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: You haven't read the bill.
[Interjection]
Joe Preston: How can we square that circle?
[Interjection]
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite fascinating because I, too, have a reasonably long memory and a reasonably good grasp of what goes on in this place and the policies that we have seen.
Mine is not a new-found love for infrastructure projects. I go back to a government that begged Conservatives in the House, in 1990, to put in place infrastructure, to save jobs in the province of Ontario. They could not be bothered. They had no interest in it. The current government was brought kicking and screaming to the idea of investing in our communities through infrastructure.
Last November there was no recession. Last November there was no deficit. Last November Conservatives came in here with an economic update that was an insult to every Canadian and members of our communities. They have the audacity to stand and say that somehow this side of the House, this party, is not interested in helping Canadians. 
I will be everywhere it takes to stand up for the people in my community and for their jobs. I will take nothing from that side of the House and nothing from that member.
Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I am sure time is limited so I will make this question very quick. She has quite a bit of enthusiasm for her disdain of the current government. This is a simple question. Does she have confidence in this government, yes or no?
[Interjection]
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in Canadians. I have confidence in our ability to dig ourselves out from under that. 
It does not mean that I have any particular love nor faith in the Conservative Party. It has given me absolutely no reason to believe in it. However, I will stand up for the unemployed. I will stand up for pensioners. I will stand up for those who need it. Unlike Liberals who gutted the EI system and threw Canadians to the wolves, I will be there when my constituents need me.
I do not like that side and I do not like the other side. I like the policies that bring Canadians to a point where they can look after their families; plain, simple and straightforward.
Ms. Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intentions, but how on earth can we possibly continue to stand and rally against the buy American provisions, while at the same time support a buy Canadian provision? How can she possibly support that at this point in time?
[Interjection]
Irene Mathyssen: Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating. The Prime Minister has gone on bended knee seven times to the Americans about their policy of procurement and did not get anywhere.
If we cannot convince Americans to let us in, we need to ensure that this country lets Canadian manufacturers in to our procurement policies.
Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is a hard act to follow, but I will do my best. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London this afternoon.
I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak out vigorously about private member's Bill C-392. The bill is another attempt—
[Interjection]
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have no objection with the member splitting his time, except that within the Standing Orders, my impression is that he has to have the unanimous consent of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The member for Hull—Aylmer is correct. During private members' business, if a member wants to split his time, he or she does require unanimous consent.
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Andrew Saxton: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for that unanimous consent.
The bill is another attempt by a member of the House to use the economic crisis for political purposes rather than helping Canadian families and businesses.
Bill C-392 would require that the government, including crown corporations and any foundation or trust with 75% of its income from the government, give absolute preference to Canadian goods and services in its procurement policies. This would also apply to transfers to the provinces, municipalities and private parties. This is the plan from the opposite side for economic development and employment, and I call it a recipe for disaster.
As members know, the economic crisis has been a synchronized global economic meltdown. No industrialized nation has been untouched by its impact. As a result, the nations of the world came together to fight the global recession with measures to stimulate our economies, and Canada was among them. We in this country are coming back.
Earlier this month, Statistics Canada reported an increase in employment during the month of August, a sign the economy is moving in the right direction. A recent report from the CIBC says that Canada's economy is to grow 2% in 2010, half a percentage point stronger than in the United States and more than double the growth expected in the eurozone economies. This is good news, but to keep the recovery on track, trade is essential. 
Everyone knows a recession cannot be fought by using protectionist measures to close the markets in a shortsighted and ill-conceived attempt to save domestic companies and jobs. The last time that was tried it was followed by the Great Depression. That is the lesson of this economic crisis and of history.
In the global marketplace no country is an island. Our government knows the importance of engagement with the world. That is why the Prime Minister has publicly stated he is against protectionism. That is why Canada's policy is to counter buy American provisions in the U.S. and economic stimulus package. Has the hon. member who proposed Bill C-392 understood the lessons of history? I do not think so. Her bill would turn an economy and a nation, built on trading with the world, away from the world.
We cannot fight a recession by choking off one of the key drivers of economic growth. That is what the bill would do. It would slow down stimulus spending by limiting it to those companies that are be acceptable to its narrow criteria. It would penalize small Canadian suppliers that are distributors of foreign made goods in terms of winning contracts. It would increase administrative costs for those companies to demonstrate the origin of their goods and services. In addition, it would increase administrative costs for recipients of federal government transfers, like provincial and municipal governments, charities and individuals.
The government has worked hard to do exactly the opposite, to cut the red tape for organizations doing business with the government. We know the cost of government is an important factor contributing to the competitiveness of our economy. Why on earth would we act to increase our costs at a time like this?
Our government is offering the right kind of leadership at the right time. We are acting to get the economy growing again and to make it stronger than ever. Our economic action plan is working. We are continuing to inject stimulus spending into the economy. We are making government more efficient and effective. We are ensuring that continued and expanded engagement with our trading partners lifts our economy out of crisis.
This is a real plan for economic recovery and Canada will emerge from this crisis stronger because of it. We cannot and will not hide behind protectionist trade policies. That is not the 21st century way. It is not the government's way and it is not the Canadian way.
We have to make a choice: turn inward, lock our doors and watch our economy shrivel, or continue to look outward, build our competitive advantages and secure our prosperity through global economic engagement. When faced with those choices, our duty is clear. 
I call upon my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its consent to speak today. 
The bill is yet another protectionist measure emanating from the benches opposite. It would require that every department and agent of the Government of Canada give preference to Canadian products when purchasing goods and services. It would apply not only to every department and agent of the Government of Canada, but to any crown corporation and any foundation with 75% of its income or funding coming from the government.
The best way to promote jobs and growth in our country is not by protecting Canadians from foreign competition, but by preparing for it. The best defence is a good offence. The best way to create jobs and growth is to guarantee that our products and services have access to worldwide markets. The best way to do that is to ensure that the world markets, including our own, stay open to competition.
The bill runs completely counter to the work of the last 20 years to guarantee access to international markets. Beginning with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement signed in 1988, the Government of Canada has entered into many free trade agreements to ensure this access. These include agreements with Mexico, as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement; with Chile, Israel, Peru, Colombia, Costa Rica; and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland as part of the agreement with the European Free Trade Association.
As we look forward, we know that as small market economy Canada's future growth depends on our ability to reach markets beyond our own borders. That is why, at the Canada-European Union Summit in Prague earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced the historic launch of negotiations toward an economic partnership between Canada and the 27 member states of the EU.
Canada is, and always will be, a trading nation. One in five jobs in Canada is linked to international trade and 70% of our GDP is dependent on it. Consider, for example, the significance of our trade with the United States. Canada and the United States are each other's most important partner in economic growth. Since the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was signed in 1988 and then NAFTA in 1992, there is no doubt our bilateral trade has been one of the major components of economic growth.
During these two decades, Canada and U.S. trade has tripled. Investment flows have also increased substantially. Two-way trade across the Canada-U.S. border at the rate of $1.7 billion a day, over $1 million a minute. An estimated three million jobs in Canada depend on our trade with the United States.
 Given this scale of success it is clear that protectionism is our mutual enemy. In fact, it is a threat to our economic recovery. Indeed, it places restrictions on free trade and real growth prospects in both the developed and developing world alike. 
Protectionist policies might look like an effective way of supporting economic growth, but our companies cannot compete if they are coddled. In fact, such actions prepare Canadian business not to compete on the world stage at all, but to fall behind under protectionist measures.
In addition, we are committed to respecting and upholding our trade commitments with our partners and we expect our partners will do the same. To come out of this global recession, we need to continue to trade free of barriers. The Great Depression taught us that the downward spiral of protectionism only leads to a more dire situation. That is why our economic action plan protects Canadians during the global recession, not by restricting trade, but by promoting it.
Our Budget Implementation Act revoked additional tariffs to increase international trade. This plan works to create good jobs for the future to equip our country for success in the years ahead.
 We are acting through the most appropriate means to protect our economy and Canada is affected by the downturn. That includes the tax system, the employment insurance program and by direct spending by federal and provincial governments. It includes lending by crown corporations and partnerships in the private sector. What it leaves behind is protectionism, in the dustbin of history where it belongs. Canada knows we cannot build a fortress and lock ourselves inside it.
I believe the evidence before us can only lead to one conclusion. Therefore, I call on my colleagues in the House to oppose the bill.
Points of OrderHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during question period on June 10, at approximately 2:40 p.m., I used an expression in asking a question, to which the government took exception. It claimed at that time it was unparliamentary. Now I disagree with that interpretation, but that is entirely beside the point. 
I do not want a dispute about language to obscure my main argument and I certainly do not want to put the Chair in a difficult position.
Therefore, I am happy to withdraw any specific word on that occasion that turns out to be unparliamentary.
Made in Canada Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-392, An Act respecting the use of government procurements and transfers to promote economic development, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Martha Hall Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today in response to the proposed Bill C-392, An Act respecting the use of government procurements and transfers to promote economic development.
I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from the NDP and I will acknowledge good intentions. I believe firmly that credit is due when it is appropriate, and I do appreciate good intentions.
However, this proposal, in effect, is a vague, protectionist and retaliatory response. It is an attempt at a response to the buy American provisions in the United States which we, as a group of parliamentarians, have vehemently opposed for some time now.
I wish to stand here today to show our lack of support for this particular bill. Let me add a little bit of context to our position on this. The buy American provisions were announced some time ago and are clearly creating significant challenges for Canadian businesses and therefore for Canadian jobs.
As much as I might have some agreement with some of the interventions from my colleagues across the way, I hate to inform them that I am not in fact part of their current coalition and I will take significant exception to some of what they said.
The challenge that we are facing now requires results. It does not require letters and words. So far, from the Conservative government that we have at the moment and since the buy American provisions were announced, we have seen nothing but letters, some of which have gone unanswered and words. This past week alone we have seen another photo op with the President of the United States, who once again acknowledged, in certain words, that the buy American provisions were not something that he felt were that important from a Canadian perspective, and that we really ought to focus on things of a more significant nature. From a Canadian perspective, these buy American provisions are in fact very important and very damaging. We need far more than a photo op and words and letters.
What we needed, and still need because we continue to not see any results, was a recognition of the impacts of the buy American provisions. Although the federal government is subject to NAFTA, the individual states of the United States and the many municipalities are not. The effect of the buy American policy, and not even just the provisions but the sentiment, has created significant efforts on the part of many states and municipalities in the United States to source specifically from the United States, which, as I have said, has created a real challenge for many Canadian businesses and therefore Canadian jobs.
The answer is not, at the top, to make noise and to protest weakly. The answer should have been and continues to be to have people on the ground in the United States, not just in Washington but at the various state levels and the municipalities, working with those people to ensure that Canadian businesses and Canadian jobs were not going to be sacrificed and put at risk because of the buy American provisions.
I feel very strongly in representing the Liberal Party saying that we stand for free trade. We stand against protectionism. We stand for the long-term economic benefits of free trade and against protectionism, and that one cannot do a knee-jerk reaction at the expense of long-term economic benefits.
We are critical of the buy American provisions, very much so. I, as a Liberal on this side of the House in opposition, am also very critical of the complete lack of results that we have seen from the Conservative government.
It is my distinct recollection that the other opposition parties have also been critical of the buy American provisions and have also been very critical of the lack of results seen from the current government.
How on earth does this response sound: “We do not like buy American. We want you to stop the buy American provisions or we are just going to do the same thing”? It sounds frightfully like children in a sandbox saying, “You have now thrown sand me, so I am going to throw sand at you”.
Retaliation does not good policy make. Simply recognizing the circumstances that we are now in, even if there were value to this, which I question, the appearance of having us as Canadians who as parliamentarians appear to have been unanimous in our critique and our criticism of the buy American provisions to simply even be seen to be promoting buy Canadian as a retaliatory measure would make absolutely no sense, and in fact would be somewhat embarrassing, frankly, for us as Canadian parliamentarians.
I would recommend that my hon. colleague think very seriously about moving this forward. I invite her to engage in a discussion on how we can achieve solid results collectively and ensure that the government finally works to achieve some results in challenging the buy American provisions.
However, this particular bill does absolutely nothing of the kind. On the contrary, it really diminishes our ability, when we are engaging with the Americans, to encourage them to reduce their buy American provisions.
Diane Bourgeois: Mr. Speaker, today we are voting on Bill C-392. I will read the summary because there are two aspects to this bill that promote employment and economic development in Canada by ensuring that the Government of Canada, while complying with its international obligations, gives preference to Canadian products or services in transfers to provinces, municipalities and private parties and in the procurement of its goods and services.
Let me say from the outset that the bill before us imposes conditions on cash transfers from the federal government to Quebec and the provinces. Once again, that is the sadly centralized and paternalistic vision of federalism rejected by Quebec. It is an insult to the Quebec nation and under no circumstances will the Bloc Québécois support a motion, bill or any other parliamentary initiative that seeks to undermine Quebec's autonomy by imposing conditions.
Furthermore, the members of the National Assembly have unanimously called for unconditional transfers. I see that my colleagues are paying close attention. I say to them that what we have here are the two visions of what Quebec should be. A sovereign Quebec would make it own decisions and would not let transfers or transfer conditions be imposed on it. But the bill before us is a federalist bill that says that when the Government of Canada makes transfer payments to the provinces and municipalities, it has to impose its vision. I would remind you that, in Quebec, the municipalities are creatures of Quebec, of the National Assembly. We have our own legislation in Quebec. We are not happy with this part of the bill.
The NDP bill also runs counter to Quebec's long battle to correct the fiscal imbalance. Quebec is calling for the right to opt out of federal spending programs in areas of shared and exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, with full compensation and with no strings attached. Unfortunately, the NDP has introduced a bill that interferes in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
We will oppose this bill for that reason, but also for another reason: the Bloc Québécois has already introduced Bill C-306, which would enable the government to use government contracts to promote economic development, while respecting the jurisdictions of all governments and complying with trade agreements. In Bill C-306, which is quite similar to the bill before us today, the Bloc Québécois ensures that, within international agreements, the federal government uses its procurement as an economic lever to promote the growth and prosperity of businesses here. This bill would enable Canada to purchase up to $600 million annually, which is the equivalent of 21,000 jobs a year. In a way, it is also a response to the Buy American Act, and it would add to the pressure on the U.S. government to drop this sort of measure. This bill we have introduced focuses specifically on purchases not subject to NAFTA. In other words, it complies with the rules and the spirit of NAFTA, which would address the concern my Liberal colleague expressed earlier.
However, this bill is much narrower in scope because it would affect Government of Canada goods and services procurement only. It would target purchases whose value falls under the threshold requiring the government to issue public tenders under NAFTA. It would target only small federal government expenditures under $25,000 U.S.
We know that the Government of Canada is the largest buyer of goods and services in Canada, that it makes about 3% of its purchases abroad, and that passing a buy Canadian bill like the one the Bloc Québécois is proposing, as opposed to the one before us today, would halt the flow of some $600 million to other countries. If only half of those purchases had been made in Canada, we would have created an estimated 21,000 jobs per year.
If the Bloc Québécois bill were passed instead of the one before us today, that would mean over $60 billion spent in Canada, perfectly legally, without having to deal with NAFTA legal negotiations.
The bill before us today contains conditions that are unacceptable to Quebec, conditions governing cash transfers from the federal government to Quebec and the provinces. We do not like that idea. We want our independence, and we will never accept such a federalist, paternalistic vision. Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois has already introduced Bill C-306, which would use procurement to promote the kind of economic development that does not impose conditions on Quebec and the provinces and that complies with international agreements.
That is why, unfortunately, we cannot vote for Bill C-392 even though it is well-intentioned.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, before I begin commenting on this bill, I would just like to take a minute to express my sincere condolences on my own behalf and that of the New Democratic caucus to the family and friends of the former member of Parliament for Port Arthur, Doug Fisher, who passed away earlier today. He was just one day short of his 90th birthday. 
Doug Fisher led an incredibly accomplished life that included many careers. He was in the armed forces. He was a miner, a teacher, a fire ranger, a construction worker, and he was considered the dean of the parliamentary press gallery when he joined the press after his parliamentary career.
He was a very active and sometimes very outspoken member of Parliament who was always dedicated to his constituents. He was greatly appreciated for his integrity and his commitment, and he will be deeply missed. Our thoughts are with his five sons: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Tobias, and with their families.
His legacy in the CCF, in the NDP and in Parliament will not be forgotten.
It is my pleasure to support my colleague in urging the passage of Bill C-392 introduced by our hard-working member for London—Fanshawe. She has been long committed to helping Canadian workers. This bill continues that dedication.
Others who might not share that dedication might say, and have said here today, that this bill is protectionist at a time when they want more trade openness. I was disappointed in the previous speakers from the Conservatives and especially from the Liberals today. Did they read the bill? I thought they were discussing a different bill here today. If they read it, they do not seem to have understood it, especially the Liberals who said they were going to vote against NAFTA and repeal it, and vote against the GST, and who are now coming onto this bandwagon.
They gloss over the fact that all of our major trading partners have had the same or more stringent measures in place, most of them for decades. This is not protectionist. It is smart and it is fair.
Governments here have left Canadian companies and workers at the mercy of foreign competitors on government contracts and infrastructure projects, while the same Canadian companies are blocked from bidding on foreign government contracts abroad. That was not fair and that was not smart.
This bill levels the playing field for Canadian products and services. It does nothing more and nothing less. A made in Canada procurement policy has been a long time coming. Canada is the last in the G7 to play catch-up and implement even minimal domestic procurement requirements. Canada is the last within NAFTA to do it as well.
Successive Conservative and Liberal governments in Canada have lost a lot at the negotiating table. There has been a chronic failure of our governments to show courage and strategy in trade negotiations and disputes. Why have all of our trading partners done otherwise? There are many reasons. Here are a few.
First, they have seen the wisdom of supporting their local industries. Mandating a minimum level of domestic content in public procurements is the smart way to use public tax dollars to stimulate our domestic economies. In other words, it will be our government buying our goods and services. That has nothing to do with free trade in the private sector. It is about our government buying our goods and services with our tax dollars.
Spinoff benefits such as local jobs, an increased tax base, increased industrial capacity and the sparking of innovation are sent abroad when projects are outsourced to foreign competitors. 
One glaring omission in the stimulus package in this year's budget, whether that stimulus is actually flowing or not, is that there is no preference for products or services that are made in Canada, even when that planned spending involves billions of dollars. Canadian taxpayer dollars should not be going to stimulate the economies of China or the United States.
Second, in other countries, they know they have a fiduciary duty to their taxpayers to get value for those taxpayer dollars. The fact that the government failed to include any domestic procurement requirements regarding the billions in spending it announced is a major disservice to Canadian taxpayers.
When passed, the made in Canada bill will mandate domestic source requirements for federal rail, transit and shipping contracts, such that infrastructure projects supported by our federal government will use, at a minimum, 50% Canadian products and services.
That is getting more stimulus bang for our taxpayer bucks. Some of that stimulus will come back to the government in new revenues.
Third, it is important leverage in trade negotiations. Exercising this legislative muscle is crucial if Canada wants to be taken seriously when we assert our interests to export markets. For Canada to have any leverage in trade negotiations, we must implement our own domestic buying by our own governments. Only then would we be in a position to pursue a managed trade agenda that would optimize and fairly allocate the beneficial impacts of public procurement.
The current government practice of again and again allowing the free market to make key decisions makes no more sense for the industrial sector than it did for banking or financial services.
Critics have sometimes said that we cannot implement made in Canada because it would violate our trade agreements, like NAFTA. Baloney. This will not violate our trade agreements. I ask my colleagues to go back and read the bill. It is very simple and straightforward. Let us not confuse trade in goods commitments with rules for domestic procurement.
For example, restricting steel imports would contravene NAFTA and WTO rules and would be protectionist, but using public funds for state and local projects in order to favour U.S. suppliers to stimulate the U.S. domestic economy would not. In fact, Canadian steel imports have already seen litigation in U.S. courts under NAFTA and the tribunal in those cases rejected the Canadian companies' claims because public procurement is also exempt from NAFTA investment rules. The U.S. already does it and it has been cleared by NAFTA and the courts.
Direct federal procurements are constrained because of NAFTA and WTO agreements, but federal transfers to provinces, states or municipalities for infrastructure are not. This is how the American government requires 60% domestic content in infrastructure projects there while still complying with NAFTA.
The United States has had buy America requirements on its books since 1933. When are we going to get it? This is the reason that so many Canadian companies have opened up plants and shifted production and Canadian jobs just across the border to places like Plattsburg, New York, and Blaine, Washington.
The current buy America debate in the U.S. is about extending its policies yet further. Made in Canada offers flexibility on future trade deals when trading partners are fair. The government is currently negotiating a trade agreement with the European Union and its 27 members, all of whom are also party to the WTO's AGP. 
I do say bravo to our Prime Minister for his efforts to diversify our international trade which is greatly needed. This can be profitable to all parties involved if agreements are crafted intelligently. 
As I have already mentioned, direct federal procurements are already regulated under international agreements and preference cannot be made for domestic companies. It is therefore no surprise that a focus of ongoing negotiations for the Europeans is to ensure that provincial and other non-federal contracts are opened up.
The made in Canada act does not preclude any agreements with the Europeans or any other AGP country. That is flexible and it is fair, but what it will not do is let the government sell us down the river in the future.
In conclusion, Canada absolutely must pass an act mandating made in Canada requirements. Let us really stimulate the Canadian economy and not just the U.S. and Chinese economies.
Let us stand up for Canada. Let us stand up for Canadian companies and for Canadian workers. Let us get the most mileage from hard-earned Canadian taxpayer dollars.
Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the comments I have heard in this place today and certainly the comments from my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe.
It is interesting. When I was listening to the Conservative members speak, I wrote a couple of things down while they were speaking. They were talking about Canadian businesses being ready to compete worldwide. I heard one of the members say that we need to go on the offence, not the defence. Another commenter said that we do not want to coddle Canadian business.
It is not about coddling Canadian business. It is about making life more affordable for Canadians. How do we make life more affordable for Canadians? We keep Canadians working. It is as simple as that. That is how we make life affordable for Canadians.
Speaking of affordable, I will digress for one second. I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition along with the government are now supporting Mr. McGuinty and his harmonized sales tax in Ontario. 
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Yikes.
John Rafferty:  Yikes is right. Mr. Speaker, if we want to make life less affordable for people in Ontario, such as the people in my riding, why not increase the cost of goods by 8%, and in some cases 13%, for things that have not been taxed before?
I have spoken to all sorts of small business owners who do not want to be coddled. All they want is a fair deal. They want to be able to sell a cup of coffee or one of the great products that comes out of Thunder Bay, Persians. People cannot afford another 8% on top of that. Small businesses cannot afford that. This is all about making life affordable for all Canadians and the people in my riding. Shame on them for the harmonized sales tax. We will have a lot more to say about that later.
Speaking of affordable, not only do we have to keep Canadians working to make it affordable, but there also has to be industry to make life affordable, so that people can be employed. If preference is not given to Canadian companies, those companies will wither and die. A good example is that just recently, the federal government refused to pay its fair share for the city of Toronto to help keep its environment clean and green by having streetcars built at the Bombardier plant in my riding.
Not only are the people in my riding disappointed with the actions of the federal government, but they are disappointed because the government does not seem to understand that if Canadian taxpayers are paying for something, it is a government's responsibility to do everything it possibly can to ensure that those things are built right here in Canada with Canadian taxpayers' money.
I will speak briefly about Bombardier. Bombardier is a state-of-the-art streetcar, train car and subway car manufacturer. It is the best in the world. I have been through that plant a couple of times. Raw materials such as sheets of aluminum come in one end and go out as finished streetcars. The only thing the Bombardier plant in my riding does not make are the wheels. They buy the wheels from somebody else. Everything else is manufactured from scratch in that plant.
It means that those are highly skilled, well paid jobs. If Toronto needs streetcars, subway cars or train cars, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that those train cars are built right here in Canada and preferably right here in Ontario.
The issue is very simple. Canadian taxpayers are going to be purchasing manufactured goods. We are talking about billions of dollars of goods in the case of Bombardier and the streetcars for Toronto. If we are going to spend that money, it is going to come out of the pockets of workers who struggle every day to make ends meet and put food on the table. What would happen if the government had its way? Those jobs would be offshore.
There was a big fight. A whole of people wanted to see those streetcars made in China. We are talking about billions of dollars worth of streetcars, well-paying jobs, and there was a group who wanted to have them built in China.
It might have been $50,000 cheaper to build them in China. However, what about the service? What about after-service? What about after manufacturing? What about people who have the skills in this country to work and work hard on behalf of their families and they do not have an opportunity to work? 
Mr. Speaker, I see I am running--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
It being 2:30 p.m., pursuant to an order made Friday, June 19, 2009, this House stands adjourned until Monday, September 28, 2009 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)