House of Commons Hansard #90 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was autism.

Topics

Employment Insurance
Oral Questions

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, there are millions of hard-working Canadians who care for sick or aging loved ones at home. They do great work but their family budgets are stretched. Canadians across Canada have welcomed the Liberal family care tax benefit to help them make ends meet.

The Conservatives, however, say that helping caregivers with a tax break would be “reckless”. Instead, it will borrow billions of dollars to cut taxes for big companies. Why are they making such a bad choice for Canadian families?

Employment Insurance
Oral Questions

11:30 a.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk
Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, we are making good choices for Canadian families. Members need only look at what we have done for families. We introduced the universal child care benefit, creating more spaces. We created the registered disability savings plan to help families look after people with long-term disabilities, which is a real form of home care. We also introduced special benefits under EI, including compassionate care leave for the self-employed.

We are delivering for Canadians. The Liberals are just making empty promises once again, and for the fifth time.

Employment Insurance
Oral Questions

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, governing is about economic choices. The Conservatives are borrowing billions to build prisons to house perpetrators of unreported crime. They are borrowing billions to buy stealth jets without running a competition or even trying to get the best price. However, if a single mother needs time off work to care for her dying father, the Conservatives say that she should use her vacation time, because Canada's Conservative government does not care enough to help.

Why do the Conservatives always make the wrong choice for Canadian families?

Employment Insurance
Oral Questions

11:30 a.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk
Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. The facts are that when people need to take care of an ailing or dying family member, they do have access to compassionate care leave, supported by EI.

We ensured that family members and even non-family members would be eligible for those benefits. We also introduced those same benefits and made them available to the self-employed.

We are taking care of Canadians families, unlike the Liberals who are offering nothing but cheap promises that they do not intend to keep.

National Defence
Oral Questions

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Desnoyers Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that it plans on spending over $470 billion over 20 years on military procurement. However, we still have not heard about its defence policies, and it still has not shared its foreign policy with the public.

Would it not make sense for the government to first set some defence and foreign affairs objectives and then invest in equipment? Unless the government's policy is nothing more than an extension of Washington's military policy.

National Defence
Oral Questions

11:35 a.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member has been because the Canada first defence strategy was released two years ago. It is a detailed plan that sets out a great deal of detailed work that will be done with respect to the four pillars of defence policy: personnel, equipment, our infrastructure investments and our readiness. It does include investing in the procurement of new equipment for the military.

I look forward to the hon. member's continued support for those military procurements.

National Defence
Oral Questions

11:35 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Desnoyers Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government jumped into the purchase of F-35s without even ensuring that there would be economic spinoffs for Quebec's aerospace industry. When the time comes to defend the auto industry, which is concentrated in Ontario, the government is right there. But when the time comes to stand up for Quebec and its aerospace industry, the government is nowhere to be seen.

Why does the government refuse to require a minimum level of economic spinoffs for the Quebec aerospace industry?

National Defence
Oral Questions

11:35 a.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, keeping in mind that we will be taking delivery of those jets somewhere in the 2016 or 2017 timeframe, at the peak production of these aircraft, we have already incurred almost $1 billion in investment in the Canadian aerospace industry without having taken delivery of a single jet. It is looking very good with $12 billion of opportunity for the Canadian aerospace industry, much of that located in the province of Quebec.

This is perhaps the greatest opportunity that the Canadian aerospace industry has ever experienced. That is why we have the unqualified support of aerospace industry representatives right across the country, including Mr. Claude Lajeunesse.

Justice
Oral Questions

October 29th, 2010 / 11:35 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has called his legislation, Bill C-16, the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act.

This is untrue for two reasons. First, this measure only applies to those sentenced to less than two years. In addition, the law clearly states that violent and dangerous offenders cannot benefit from this measure.

Justice
Oral Questions

11:35 a.m.

Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles
Québec

Conservative

Daniel Petit Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that people who commit serious and violent crimes should serve their sentences in prison and not in the comfort of their homes. Our bill would clearly tell the courts that house arrest is no longer an option for dangerous and violent criminals.

Justice
Oral Questions

11:35 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Mr. Speaker, since sentences of less than two years are served in provincial prisons, including those in Quebec, and since house arrest only applies to sentences of less than two years, it means that if we pass this law, there will be more prisoners in provincial prisons, which are already overflowing, but not one additional person in federal prisons.

Does the minister have any idea how much this will cost Quebec and the provinces? Does he have an estimate of this cost? If so, can he share it with us?

Justice
Oral Questions

11:35 a.m.

Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles
Québec

Conservative

Daniel Petit Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, our government introduced a bill to put an end to conditional sentences for serious and violent crimes. However, the opposition, including the member who has just asked me this question, kept it from progressing on a number of occasions, finally gutting it. That is the reality.

International Co-operation
Oral Questions

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives still will not explain why they cut funding for KAIROS, an organization that undertakes overseas development on behalf of 11 churches and religious organizations representing over 20 million Canadians.

The Minister of International Cooperation's department says, “KAIROS continues to meet all the requirements for CIDA funding and continues to do great work helping millions of impoverished people around the world”.

At the last minute, however, the minister herself decided that none of that was important and cancelled the funding.

Canadians deserve an explanation. What is it?

International Co-operation
Oral Questions

11:35 a.m.

Calgary East
Alberta

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the position of the government has not changed on this matter. Our government has been very clear. We have an aid effectiveness strategy and we are acting on it. We are delivering real results for people in developing countries.

All projects funded by CIDA are assessed against our effectiveness standards. After due diligence, it was determined that the KAIROS proposal did not meet the Government of Canada's priorities.

Our priorities are: more food, more education and more help. In other words, our priority is to make a real difference.

International Co-operation
Oral Questions

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Mr. Speaker, there is still no explanation.

The Conservatives have turned their guns on an organization that the government, as well as Canadians, have supported for 35 years. The Conservatives have abandoned the over five million people in developing countries who KAIROS helps and they have done it despite the fact that CIDA said that KAIROS should qualify for funding. The minister will not even tell us why.

I am giving the minister one last chance to please explain why she denied funding to KAIROS in full knowledge that its good work was aligned with the priorities of and recommendation by CIDA.