Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2011

Rick Norlock Northumberland—Quinte West, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member for Ajax—Pickering's recent tour of a correctional facility left him “unimpressed”. He said that he was unimpressed that the failed prison farm program, which lost millions of taxpayer dollars a year and had less than a 1% success rate, was replaced with more relevant and effective inmate programs. He was unimpressed that prisoners were not happy while serving their sentences and paying their debt to society. If anyone should be unimpressed, it is the Canadian taxpayers who work hard and play by the rules.

The Liberal public safety critic can continue to champion the rights of prisoners and high morale for inmates. On this side, our Conservative government will continue to work hard to get results for law-abiding Canadians and victims, like Bill C-23B that would prevent those who commit sexual crimes against children from ever receiving a pardon.

This is our pledge, even if being tough on crime does not impress the member for Ajax—Pickering.

Michael Ignatieff Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, for five years the government has done nothing about pensions and then it comes up with a private option that will weaken the Canada pension plan and simply boost profits for banks and insurance companies on top of the $6 billion tax break they have already been given.

When will the Prime Minister stop lining up behind banks and insurance companies and start lining up behind middle-class Canadian families who need security in retirement?

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I note that the idea for a new registered pool pension plan was very well received by all of the provinces and would be a useful addition to Canada's retirement income system.

This is the government that has brought in income splitting for our pensioners, the tax free savings account, increases to the pension deduction to the age limit. In every case the Liberal Party voted against those things. When will it get on the side of Canadian pensioners?

Michael Ignatieff Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, 75% of private sector employees do not have a pension plan. However, instead of strengthening the public pension plan, the Prime Minister is enriching banks and insurance companies with his private plan, in addition to the $6 billion in tax breaks he has given those very companies.

Why does this government line up behind banks and insurance companies and never behind ordinary middle class Canadian families?

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, this government has done more than any other government ever has for pensioners in this country. We brought in income splitting for our pensioners, the tax free savings account, increases to pension benefits and tax credits for seniors. In every case the Liberal Party voted against those benefits for our pensioners. It is time for the Liberal Party to support our seniors.

Michael Ignatieff Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, talk to the income trust retirees about what the government did to them.

The issue here is the government should be strengthening the public provision, the Canada pension plan, instead of enriching banks and insurance companies.

The Prime Minister himself has a public pension. It is a good fat public pension. He stood up for that pension. When will he stand up for improved public pensions for average Canadians?

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what this government has done, which is a very different record than on the other side, when the previous government put Canada into so much difficulty. What was it doing with services for ordinary people with health care, education, pensions? As the Liberal government was raising taxes on people, it was also scrapping those services. That is why we have to keep taxes low, keep core services funded in the country and ensure we keep this economy and job creation going.

Martha Hall Findlay Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, while American Senator Joe Lieberman is dragging our national reputation through the mud and slagging our border, the Prime Minister is negotiating a secret perimeter security deal with the United States. If the Prime Minister is negotiating this deal in secret, it is because he intends to sacrifice large portions of our sovereignty.

Why is the Prime Minister discussing perimeter security with the Americans and not with Canadians?

Diane Ablonczy Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs)

Mr. Speaker, our government always puts the interests of Canada first and foremost. The hon. member knows that more than $1.6 billion in trade crosses the border between our country and our nearest neighbour every day, creating job and economic opportunities.

We have been focused on means of keeping our shared border open to trade and investment and closed to security and terrorist threats.

Martha Hall Findlay Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is using security as a foil to disguise his failures on trade with the United States.

Yes, the border has thickened, but do not for a minute think that it has to do with security. Labelling rules have nothing to do with security. Buy American legislation has nothing to do with security. Higher fees at the border have nothing to do with security. Recent U.S. softwood lumber claims have nothing to do with security. It is our Canadian sovereignty.

Why is the Prime Minister having these discussions with the Americans but not having these discussions with Canadians?

Diane Ablonczy Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs)

Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal would be concerned that we are talking to a trading partner with whom we do 75% of our trade. Of course we want to keep those lines of trade and security open. We will continue to do that. We are committed to that. I hope that the Liberal Party will support this because it is right for Canada. It is in the best interests of our country.

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, according to tax specialist Luc Godbout, Quebec's and Ottawa's sales taxes are essentially harmonized, which means that both taxes are applied to the same goods, with a few exception, such as books, diapers and nursing products. These goods are not taxed by the Government of Quebec.

My question for the Prime Minister is this: is the problem with the negotiations between the two parties a result of the fact that Ottawa is determined to impose a tax on certain goods, such as books and diapers, which calls into question Quebec's policy on culture and families?

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc said that there were differences between the federal sales tax and Quebec's sales tax, and the reason is that the taxes are not harmonized. That is what we are in the process of negotiating with the Government of Quebec and these negotiations will be held in good faith.

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, there can be some differences, as there are in the agreements with Ontario, and the Prime Minister knows that as well as I do. What is causing problems right now is the stubbornness of the Minister of Finance—from Ontario—who gave $4.3 billion to Ontario but who refuses to do so for Quebec, even though Quebec did this back in 1992.

I am urging the Prime Minister, as is Mr. Bachand, Quebec's finance minister, to intervene in this issue, to take it over and to resolve it once and for all.