Debates of June 14th, 2010

Lawrence Cannon Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the majority of the costs are related to the security of the G8 and the G20. In that regard we are following the advice of a number of consultants who have indicated to us that the costs are in line with all the summits that have been held previously. This is exactly what needs to be done to be able to protect not only Canada's incoming visitors but to be able to protect and celebrate our reputation as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives seem to think they can get rid of the $56 billion deficit by giving out prizes. Here is the latest from the Treasury Board president: “find government waste, get a $10,000 reward”.

Since he has offered, I can give him an idea to save money. The government should scrap the fake lake and that will save $2 million. The government should give that $2 million, plus the $10,000 prize, I would think, to offset the cuts to women's groups and get on with the real plan to fight the deficit.

Stockwell Day President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that my friend has made a pre-announcement of an announcement I am going to make in about two hours, to indicate to all of our public servants that if they come up with a business plan that shows how a certain service can be delivered and money will be saved over a six-month period, they will receive a cash award. We think our public servants are up to this task.

I had not anticipated providing it to MPs, but the hon. member has offered a suggestion. I guess I could put that forward to the Auditor General to see if MPs could be part of this too, but it is mainly directed toward our good public servants.

Daniel Paillé Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, following the lead of France and the United Arab Emirates, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Ontario Securities Commission entered into an agreement with Quebec's AMF during the financial meetings that were held in Montreal.

These three authorities signed a comprehensive arrangement concerning the supervision of financial operations between the United States and Canada.

Given this international recognition of Canada's regulatory structure, why does the Minister of Finance not do likewise?

Ted Menzies Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned in here many times, this is a voluntary process that we are encouraging the provinces to take part in. We have had advice from all around the world that the system that Canada is adopting, a voluntary system where provinces can opt in, will actually protect investors and it will increase investment into our country.

If that is such a bad thing, then why are the OECD, IMF and World Bank suggesting it is that good a system? We have made it voluntary, which makes it that much better.

Daniel Paillé Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, all of these organizations are signing with the AMF and the Ontario Securities Commission.

Instead of this nonsense, why have serious people, like the governor of the Bank of Canada or the Associate Deputy Minister of Finance reiterated the urgency to improve—not destroy, but improve—the regulatory system?

Now is not the time to reinvent the wheel or the zipper.

Why is the Minister of Finance trying to take away our autonomy? Why make a big mess of something that works very well?

Ted Menzies Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, once again, a voluntary system would not deprive anyone of the opportunity of being part of a Canada-wide system, a system that the investors who were caught in the Earl Jones debacle suggest to us would have helped them.

That is what we are trying to do, protect good investors in this country, people who are trying to save for their futures. But we are also encouraging companies that want to come to Canada that they do not have to go through 13 separate regulatory processes, simply one.

Carole Lavallée Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, artists and creators are very critical of Bill C-32, the copyright bill. The bill's new digital lock will not help, because they will have to play the part of investigator, detective and lawyer—just like Claude Robinson—if they want their rights to be respected.

Does the minister understand that by forcing creators, artists and artisans to enforce their rights themselves, he is not giving copyright holders enough protection?

James Moore Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, which we introduced in the House of Commons, is fair to both consumers and creators.

The Canadian Film and Television Production Association applauds the government’s proposed copyright reform. Film, television and online content creation is responsible for more than 160,000 jobs in Canada.

The government’s actions play an important part in ensuring that those jobs are maintained and that new jobs are added. We kept the promises that we made to creators and consumers.

Carole Lavallée Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely wrong. The government has not kept the promises it made to consumers.

The Canadian Consumer Initiative has stated that the digital lock is:

...a punitive approach that has proven ineffective elsewhere in the world. Consumers' rights may be restricted or even denied by the media companies.

That is what national organizations responsible for consumer rights have said. How can the minister deny the fact that his bill favours neither creators nor consumers?

James Moore Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. This bill is good for both groups.

An organization that my colleague knows well, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, does act in consumers' best interests. According to the chamber, Bill C-32 is an important step toward maintaining a competitive, thriving economy. Bill C-32 is a monumental and essential measure that will go a long way toward maintaining a stable and competitive business environment in Canada.

The only suggestion we have heard from the Bloc Québécois so far was to impose a new $75 tax on iPods. That is not in consumers' best interests.

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that is exactly what we are doing. We are of course, as a government, committed to providing the best possible equipment at the best possible price in a timely fashion to give our men and women in uniform the equipment they need.

What is ironic and what is lost on the member opposite is that in fact, it was his party when in government which, in 2002, entered into this 10-year, $10 billion contract. It is a bit beyond hypocrisy for the member now to suggest that we are not moving in the right direction with respect to replacing the next generation of fighter aircraft.

Marc Garneau Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, on May 27 the Minister of National Defence told the committee of the whole, “the reference to the next generation of fighter aircraft does not preclude a competition, and an open and transparent one”. Was the minister misleading the House?

Does the minister intend to follow well-established procedures, or has he already chosen his $16 billion aircraft without tender, without competition? How will this ensure that we get the best deal for Canada, the best aircraft, as well as the greatest benefits for the aerospace industry?