Debates of Dec. 12th, 2011

Mr. Speaker, once again, I bring forward a petition on behalf of many citizens from the great city of Calgary, Alberta. There are also a few signatures from people in Bragg Creek, Alberta.

The petitioners point out to the government, quite succinctly, that in our current media environment public broadcasting is an essential promoter and defender of Canadian culture in both French and English. They also note that Canada requires a broadcaster that reflects the different needs and circumstances of each official language, and that Canadians should continue to have access to Canadian stories and Canadian content, which is something we believe in here.

The petitioners implore the government to fulfill its commitment to the CBC, so that Canada can tell its stories to all of us from coast to coast to coast by way of our great public broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today. I will try to brief and succinct as I report them to you.

The first petition I would like to table with the House of Commons deals with concerns of electors from across Canada, and particularly in my own riding of Saanich--Gulf Islands, about the fate of Canada's plans relating to climate change.

The petitioners point out that the national round table has estimated that we could be facing annual costs as high as $43 billion a year by 2020 and that we must reduce our emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.

This is an excellent and timely petition, given the recent events in Durban.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by people primarily in my riding of Saanich--Gulf Islands who are concerned with what the federal government could do in relation to the issue of bottled water. Many jurisdictions are taking the decision to not have bottled water in their municipal offices and even in provincial offices.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop the provision of bottled water in places where water is potable. Bottled water represents a huge solid waste issue. It is not any safer than our tap water, thank goodness, in most Canadian homes, but this does not apply to first nations communities. Our potable water from the tap is just as good and just as healthy, or healthier, than bottled water.

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 193 will be answered today.

With regard to the F-35s: what information was provided to the government about the aircraft’s capabilities indicating that they have the capacity to meet the Canadian Armed Force’s mandatory requirements?

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the joint strike fighter, JSF, partnership, together with eight other nations, and as a signatory to the JSF memorandum of understanding, MOU, Canada was provided unparalleled access to classified aircraft capability information by the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter Program Office. Applying the principles of the Access to Information Act, specific information concerning aircraft capability has been withheld in accordance with subsection 13(1), as it is considered information obtained from other governments. In addition, access to aircraft capability and systems integration demonstrations was available through participation in joint strike fighter program simulator events.

The capability options for the joint strike fighter, i.e., the aircraft and its associated sustainment and training systems, were measured against the Royal Canadian Air Force-approved high-level mandatory capabilities and their associated mandatory requirements. If an option was unable to meet one or more of the mandatory requirements, the option would be deemed unable to perform the missions that Canada needed from its next generation fighter capability. The F-35 joint strike fighter was the only option for the Royal Canadian Air Force that met all of the mandatory requirements. In particular, mandatory requirements associated with survivability, interoperability, and sensors and data fusion were met only by the F-35 joint strike fighter.

Mr. Speaker, if Question Nos. 192 and 194 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Is that agreed?

With regard to the capability of the next generation of fighter jets: (a) what are the mandatory requirements that must be met; (b) how and why (the step by step process) were these requirements deemed to be mandatory; (c) on what basis was the determination made that the F-35A was the only aircraft that could meet all of the mandatory requirements; and (d) were there other aircraft considered and, if yes, on what dates and to which Department of National Defense’s divisions were provided the specifications concerning these other aircraft considered?

With regard to the National Immunization Strategy (NIS): (a) what was the total amount of funds allocated to the NIS since fiscal year 2003-2004, broken down by year; (b) were all allocated funds spent each year; (c) when did the most recent funding expire; (d) when was funding last renewed; (e) were each of the nine goals of the NIS achieved, if not, which goals were not achieved and why; (f) since 2006, have staff of either the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and/or Health Canada (HC) met with any professional groups and members of the private sector on the NIS and, if so, which professional groups and members of the private sector, and which staff, broken down by year; (g) were any recommendations made by staff within either the PHAC or HC to the Minister of Health that the NIS be renewed; (h) how many lives have been estimated to been saved by the NIS; (i) how many illnesses have been estimated to have been prevented; and (j) has the NIS reduced hospitalizations of preventable diseases for which Canada has vaccines?

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Is that agreed?

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister would be somewhat sympathetic in terms of the whole principle of having the opportunity as members of Parliament to be able to discuss and debate bills. There is this responsibility of accountability. We have now seen the government, in many different forms, bring in legislation and then assign time allocation. Now we are starting to see the movement and adjournment of debate. All of these actions take the ability away from us as legislators to give due diligence and scrutinize what these important issues are for all Canadians.

For the people who are witnessing this debate, it is important that we recognize the difference in the style of government that we have seen since the Prime Minister has achieved his majority. We have seen a majority come down with a very heavy hand. It is critically important that each minister be accountable for the types of actions that they are taking, which take away from what this institution is all about.

We now have yet another minister who has made the decision to limit debate--

Order. I will stop the hon. member there. He has had a minute and a half to put his question. I am sure other people would like to ask questions, so I will stop him there and allow the parliamentary secretary to answer.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Speaker, he is correct on one thing. There is definitely a big difference in styles between the government and that side of the House. On this side of the House we are actually focusing on jobs and the economy, keeping our economy moving and keeping Canadians working. That is what we are doing.

This copyright bill has been debated for many years. It was debated in the last Parliament. It has been debated extensively in this Parliament. We have met with hundreds of people. It has had many hours of debate in this House. It has had many hours of debate in committee in the last Parliament. It is the same bill that we brought forward. We want to get it to committee, so that we can continue to hear more of the voices from Canadians who want to talk about this bill.

Ultimately, he is quite right. We will be different than the opposition. We will continue to focus on jobs. We will continue to focus on the economy. We will continue to do everything that we can on this side of the House to ensure that Canadians have a government that they can rely on to create and protect jobs.

This particular legislation is required to bring us in line with international standards. We need the opposition to get on board with us.

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was talking about wanting to move this to committee and that is why the government brought in the motion to limit debate. He said he wanted to move this to committee to hear from Canadians and people who had any issues, or concerns, or whatever. What does he think this process is? We were elected by Canadians to stand up and examine each and every piece of legislation.

There are rules set out in the books to give us time to do that, yet for every single piece of legislation that this majority government brings forward to the House, it has to bring in a motion to limit debate. Who in their right mind could ever suggest that that is any indication that this government has any respect for democracy?

Mr. Speaker, we have spent hundreds of hours debating this bill. In fact, we debated a Liberal opposition amendment to the bill in the House for many weeks. In the last Parliament we had this very same bill before the House. We spent many hours debating that bill. I know many of the members on this side of the House have been speaking with constituents. They have been speaking with stakeholders with respect to the bill.

We also know that we need to move forward on copyright legislation and bring this in line with international standards so we can protect Canadian jobs. That is what is important. The members opposite and Canadians will have a greater opportunity again, at committee, to put forward their feelings with respect to this legislation. It will then come back to this place again and we will have some more opportunity to debate it further.

We just need to get this to committee, so we can do the work that Canadians have sent us here to do and to stop filibustering, stop killing jobs, and focus on creating jobs and Canadian industry that is so reliant on--

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Random--Burin--St. George's.