Debates of Sept. 18th, 2009

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

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?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

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 Insurance

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

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 & 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?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

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, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

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, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

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 Care

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

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, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

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.

Bankruptcy

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

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.

Nortel

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

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-food

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

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, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

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, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

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, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

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 Games

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

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, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

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, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

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 oceans

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

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?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

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, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

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?