Ted Hsu

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, because we are debating an omnibus bill in which there are things that are not related to the budget, I have to ask the following question.

Budget 2014 says there would be some legislation to implement certain treaties, and in particular there is a piece which amends the Industrial Design Act. There is a part of this legislation we are debating today that says with respect to the Industrial Design Act,“A design is registerable if [...] the design is not contrary to public morality or order”.

My question to the member is, are we implementing a treaty here, or is the government trying to say something about public morality and order?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the comments of my colleague about the fact that the budget implementation bill is an omnibus bill.

One of the things in the bill that was not mentioned in the budget is the repeal of the Canadian Polar Commission Act and the incorporation of the Canadian Polar Commission into the Canadian High Arctic Research Station. The new act would also remove the wording in the act that gave the Canadian Polar Commission the ability to take initiative. The new act does not use the word “initiate” or “on its own initiative” or any of these things. It seems to me that it is another example of the Conservative government taking more control of researchers.

I would ask my colleague to comment on the fact that this is another example of an abuse that is occurring in the omnibus bill.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the first item that my hon. colleague addressed, which is the children's fitness tax credit.

The question is about whether the changes to the tax credit measure are really about children's fitness. The way to decide that is to ask the government, I believe, if it has any intention of measuring what the change in children's fitness or fitness activity is as a result of the tax credit.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow on the last question, because it seems to me that the current Conservative government has rejected what would be a very good improvement, and that is to replace its plan for EI tax credits with a plan that would actually give an incentive to businesses to create jobs.

It is one thing to give businesses money, which they may or may not invest. It is another thing to say that, if they create a new job, they will get a credit. They would get this incentive.

Economic choices are made at the margins. This is basic economics. I really would like the member to answer the question that was previously posed, and also to tell the Canadian people why we do not give businesses an incentive to create new jobs instead of just a simple transfer of cash.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about a specific detail in the bill. The previous act, the Canadian Polar Commission Act, allowed the commission to initiate activities. The proposed Canadian high Arctic research act does not say anything about initiating activities. Therefore, it seems to me that, with this new act, the government would be taking away some of the autonomy that used to be present.

It seems the government is trying to have more control over what researchers do, take away control and centralize it in the Prime Minister's Office and the minister's office. To me, it is just another example of how controlling the government is. I am wondering why the government is afraid of just keeping the same language as before and allowing researchers in the north to have some autonomy.

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on something the Prime Minister said during question period. It sounded like there was some uncertainty as to whether the government would be voting in favour or against the motion today.

Since some time has passed, I wonder if the member knows whether she will be voting for or against the motion.

[Health, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Bloomberg reports that the Gates Foundation and two U.S. companies want to expand U.S. production of monoclonal antibodies to treat Ebola by using CHO cells, but we have the capacity to manufacture it in Canada as well. Our Public Health Agency of Canada developed Ebola antibodies and our National Research Council owns the CHO cell line. There are Canadian companies that could take these and manufacture a supply.

Should the government mandate that Canada have its own supply of this Ebola treatment?

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the NDP motion today asks the House to reject the process and not simply let the scientists speak and make an evaluation of whether this is a sustainable project or not. I believe that this NDP motion is really short-circuiting the process, which we certainly should be trying to make as rigorous as possible.

Taking into account the government, would my hon. colleague from Halifax agree that it is a double-edged sword to be saying that the House should be pronouncing on a project which is more properly considered in a process that is rigorous and that can and should be made more rigorous? Could the government not use this motion against the idea of sustainable development?

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for laying the case out very clearly that the government has withheld crucial information. The whole idea is whether the public can accept that sustainable development can occur under the Conservative government. If the government hides crucial scientific information, how can the public ever have confidence that sustainable development will occur with this project?

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out, the way this motion was written covers up the problem. In other words, this government has not disclosed all the scientific facts known to the minister's office or to marine mammal experts.

Why does the motion not explicitly mention this problem which, to my way of thinking, is this government's main problem regarding this issue?