House of Commons Hansard #100 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was benefit.

Topics

The EconomyOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for St. John's East.

Public Works and Government ServicesOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, two years after the review of the F-35 began and eight years after the memorandum of understanding that got the government into this trouble in the first place, the Conservatives are still trying to find a way out of the F-35 dilemma.

Now government spinners are telling the media that they think they might rewrite the specifications, which is something they should have done two years ago. Could the minister confirm if this is true?

Public Works and Government ServicesOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, our priority is to ensure that our Canadian Forces receive the equipment they need to do the job we ask of them.

This is a very challenging initiative, but we have launched our seven-point plan to ensure that whatever decision we take is the right one. We are evaluating all of the options to replace the F-18 fleet. No decision has been reached yet, but once we do reach a decision after evaluating all of the options, then we will make the announcement.

Public Works and Government ServicesOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, as a Conservative source told The Globe and Mail, rewriting specifications could “be a way for the government to show action without having to make a commitment”.

Conservative staff has told the media that there will be a briefing on Thursday. Is the government just trying to buy more time, or will there indeed be a fair competition with guarantees for jobs for the CF-18 replacement program?

Public Works and Government ServicesOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the New Democrats yesterday, they really should not believe everything they read in the press. There are different reports about all the different things we could do, each one of them claiming to be what we would do. We could not possibly do them all.

Various ministers are reviewing a report from the analysis that has been prepared by the RCAF and has been viewed and reviewed by an independent panel of experts on this subject to ensure that the analysis is both rigorous and impartial. Once the decision has been taken, we will make an announcement.

Public Works and Government ServicesOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, according to media reports, it seems that the government has decided to rewrite the specifications for the fighter jets that will replace the CF-18s. Observers are skeptical, however, because once again, everything seems to have been set up in a way that eliminates Lockheed Martin's competitors.

An open, transparent bidding process is the only way to guarantee the best technology at the best price and maximize industrial benefits for Canadians. Why are the Conservatives ruling out that option?

Public Works and Government ServicesOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, no decision has been made about replacing the CF-18 fleet. The ministers have received reports prepared by the Canadian Forces and reviewed by an independent panel of experts to ensure that the analyses are rigorous and impartial. We will make a decision and, once we have, we will announce it.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister demonstrated the full breadth of his ignorance regarding the fight against climate change by opposing it to job creation. His apocalyptic vision for our economy is equalled only by the proliferation of extreme weather events.

We are talking about a cost to the Canadian economy of $5 billion per year. Therefore, it is the Conservatives' inaction in the fight against climate change that causes the most damage to our jobs and our economy.

When will the Conservatives take the steps necessary to live up to their Copenhagen commitment?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the NDP does not understand the concept of balance. They always say no to responsible economic development. They say no to greenhouse gas reductions and to responsible transportation by pipeline. They say no to the environmental protection measures in our budget without reading it.

The only thing the NDP says yes to is a $20-billion carbon tax.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is false to claim that taking action against climate change is bad for jobs and growth. Otherwise, Finland would not have just announced that it will reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, and the United States would not have committed to reaching its Copenhagen targets.

Yesterday, our Prime Minister sadly took his place among world leaders who are failing on climate change. Will the minister now correct the Prime Minister and acknowledge that growing our economy and fighting climate change must be done together?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, we are taking a balanced approach. I think most people forget that Canada represents less than 2% of global emissions, while the U.S. produces almost 20%.

Canadians need to know that the coal-fired energy generation in the U.S. produces the greenhouse gas emissions of all the emissions produced in Canada, combined.

We are pleased the U.S. is following Canada's footsteps. We continue to build on our record and work with the U.S. to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions internationally. We will do it without a $20-billion carbon tax.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, someone once said, “Don't indulge your theories, think of your children and listen to the experts”. That was the Prime Minister, yet Conservatives are living in climate denial.

The Conservatives are placing ideology ahead of the well-being of Canadians. They have no vision of what Canada could be. We could excel in research and development, promoting alternative energies, building new industries and leading the way in green technologies. We could be a leader in creating good sustainable jobs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Why does the minister not want Canada to be a leader in tomorrow's green energy economy?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 10th, 2014 / 2:35 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, of course we are a leader: 77% of Canada's electricity comes from non-emitting sources. We are the first major coal user to band construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation units. The first 21 years, for example, of our new coal regulations are expected to result in a cumulative reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 214 megatonnes, which is equivalent to removing 2.6 million personal vehicles from the road per year. Our regulations for heavy-duty vehicles would reduce carbon emissions in those vehicles by up to 23%.

What does the NDP have to offer? A carbon tax; a tax on everything.

TaxationOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' income splitting plan is as ill-advised as their inaction on climate change.

It will cost federal and provincial budgets more than $5 billion, and 86% of Canadians will get no benefit from it at all. Economists, analysts and even the former minister of finance have all expressed their opposition to this bad idea.

By providing a tax break worth $5 billion to the most wealthy, the government is going to erode public finances and make our society less just.

How can the minister support such a retrograde measure?

TaxationOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Crowfoot Alberta

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson ConservativeMinister of State (Finance)

Mr. Speaker, again, we are delivering historic tax relief, leaving more money in the pockets of Canadians where it belongs.

Total savings for a typical family are $3,400 in 2014. We have increased the amount Canadians earn tax free. We have introduced pension income splitting. We have reduced the GST from 7% to 5%. We introduced important tax credits, including the Canada employment credit, the working income tax benefit and child tax credit, just to name a few.

TaxationOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, the eventual return to a balanced budget should bring with it sensible economic decisions.

Since 2006, under Conservative rule, the public debt has increased by more than 60% and public services to Canadians have been sliced and diced.

Income splitting, as proposed, will cost the federal government $3 billion and will prevent us from tackling the debt and reinvesting in services to Canadians.

How can the minister support a measure that will put us back into deficit just as a balanced budget has been achieved?

TaxationOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Crowfoot Alberta

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson ConservativeMinister of State (Finance)

Mr. Speaker, we are not looking at any measures that would ever put us back into a deficit. We are coming to a balanced budget in 2015, as we promised Canadians. When we do, we will look at other measures in which we can help lower the tax burden for Canadians.

We established the landmark tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since RRSPs. The NDP opposed it. Tax Freedom Day is over two weeks earlier than when the Liberals were in power.

Again, we are lowering taxes. Over one million low-income Canadians are removed from the tax rolls, 380,000 of them seniors.

TaxationOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, a lot of those people are not paying taxes because they do not have a job or do not earn enough, thanks to the Conservative government.

The Conservative $5 billion income splitting scheme would give the most money to people who need it the least. There is nothing for single moms. There is nothing for parents who are in the same tax bracket. There is nothing for 86% of Canadians.

Canadian families have changed a lot over the years and take every shape and size, yet the Conservatives have not kept pace. I am sure the Conservatives thought the fifties were sure swell, but we need policies that work in 2014. When will they change their mind on this policy that is bad for Canadian families?

TaxationOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Crowfoot Alberta

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson ConservativeMinister of State (Finance)

Mr. Speaker, unlike the tax-and-spend opposition, we do not believe Canadians should spend more money. As I travel across the country, I do not hear a lot of Canadians say that Ottawa is not taking enough revenues and that we have a revenue problem in Ottawa.

We are leaving more money in the pockets of Canadians, $3,400 a year for the average family of four in 2014. We have cut taxes in every way government collects them: personal, consumption, business, excise taxes and more. Since we have come to power we have cut taxes over 180 times. The NDP voted—

TaxationOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

EmploymentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, in the natural resources industry, temporary foreign workers are packed into dormitories like sardines and forced to work an unacceptable number of hours.

In the trucking industry, temporary foreign workers are drawn in by false promises of permanent residency and are then exploited. This is a very serious problem.

Why is the minister doing nothing to put a stop to these abuses?

EmploymentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism

Mr. Speaker, we have taken major steps to prevent abuses related to the program. We are punishing employers who do not follow the rules.

For example, we have created a black list to which we are adding more and more bad employers. In the budget bill, we created penalties for bad employers. In addition, I have asked my department to work with the Canada Border Services Agency on files of a criminal nature.

We are taking action on this file.

EmploymentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have a blacklist of five employers. Guess how many of these have actually had their licence revoked? Zero. They promised fines. Guess how many companies have been fined? Zero. They are doing nothing.

This is a really important issue about which Canadians care deeply: pervasive abuse of temporary foreign workers. Will the minister finally answer seriously and do something about it?

EmploymentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism

Mr. Speaker, when the member says their licence has not been pulled, I do not know what he is talking about. There is no such thing as a licence in the program. How ridiculous. We have a Liberal immigration critic who does not even understand the first thing about the program.

The blacklist means that employers cannot access labour market opinions or work permits. How many employers were on the blacklist during 13 years of Liberal government? Zero. Why? Because Liberals did not have a blacklist. They did not have administrative and monetary penalties. They did not refer criminal cases for criminal prosecution. We are. We are taking action.

EmploymentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!