House of Commons Hansard #20 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was post.
Early Learning and Child Care ActPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer
Because there was so much noise and there were people standing in the House, it was difficult for me to hear the members from the other end, so in fairness to all members and to ensure that those members have a voice when they desire to do so, I will call for the yeas and nays again and we are going to proceed from there.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Early Learning and Child Care ActPrivate Members' Business
Early Learning and Child Care ActPrivate Members' Business
Early Learning and Child Care ActPrivate Members' Business
The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 21, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
Is there consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.?
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, on October 23 during question period I asked a question of the Conservative government regarding its electoral in-and-out finance scheme that Elections Canada ruled as being in violation of the Elections Act and refused rebates to candidates and their financial agents who had applied for rebates.
I also raised the issue that some of the candidates for the Conservative government in the 2006 election, and who had participated in this in-and-out electoral scam or scheme, have since been appointed to important posts.
The House leader of the government answered that the Conservative Party and the Conservative government had done no wrong, that they always follow the law and they have in the past and will in the future.
However, that is not what Elections Canada has said. Elections Canada has discounted and disallowed rebate requests from Conservative candidates on the basis that some of their expenses did not in fact follow the law, and were not made in order to pay for a local campaign and enhance the visibility of the local candidate in his or her own campaign.
The House leader of the government also did not answer the question regarding the number of these individuals who have since been appointed to important posts.
Let me give a couple of examples. Andrew House, Conservative candidate in Halifax is currently the director of communications for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, and he intends to stand as a Conservative candidate whenever the next election takes place. What is interesting is that the minister herself participated in this electoral financing in-and-out scheme.
The Conservative Party is currently under investigation by Elections Canada for allegedly funnelling over $1.2 million in national advertising costs to regional candidates during the 2006 federal election in order to circumvent federal election spending limits.
Elections Canada itself, not the Liberal Party, not the Bloc, not the NDP and not the media, has rejected advertising expenses filed by 66 Conservative candidates because Elections Canada has determined they did not comply with election law.
Last month, in September, the Liberals released the names along with financial details concerning 129 former Conservative candidates and official agents who were named as participants in this apparent scheme to violate spending limits and pad candidate rebates.
We have requested that the Commissioner of Elections Canada look into nine additional campaigns that may have participated in this scheme. Elections Canada has spoken.
I am not giving the Liberal's conclusion. I am giving Elections Canada--
The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
James Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, the member can give it a rest because the Liberals have been going on about this for a number of weeks in the House. In fact, the allegations that the Liberals have raised a number of times in the House of Commons are baseless.
What the member alleges that the Conservative Party did in the instance of the last election campaign is not an uncommon practice. In fact, her own party, the Liberal Party, has engaged in this itself. No political party in the House is going to take any lessons from the Liberals when it comes to appropriate campaign finance reform.
We know that a principal reason the Liberals are sitting on that side of the House of Commons is the extremely long list of corrupt behaviour by the Liberal Party in the past. The member was a contemporary and I believe her riding abuts the former riding of Alfonso Gagliano. Perhaps in the one minute that my colleague has to respond she could tell us--
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
He was in the east end. I am in the west end.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
The city of Montreal, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine.
She should know very well that the charges she has made and what she alleges the Conservative Party did in this case was improper are, in fact, utterly baseless.
I think that her constituents believe that their member of Parliament should be focused on issues that are of concern to them rather than getting up in the House of Commons day in and day out and raising phantom issues. All she has done since she has been in opposition is raise phantom issues, phantom concerns that are simply non-existent. She tries to smear people's names and reputations, which she just did here as she did in her question a few weeks ago.
The member's constituents deserve better than a member of Parliament who just gets up and persistently smears people's names, raises innuendo, and alleges scandals that do not exist. Her constituents want a member of Parliament who will stand up and deliver for them. If she is not prepared to do it, then in the next campaign they will find someone who will.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, the one problem with that Conservative member's statement is that Elections Canada has rebated the candidate expenses for the Liberal candidates of 2006, for the Bloc candidates of 2006, and for the NDP candidates of 2006. The only party that Elections Canada has ruled that certain expenses were not admissible, that violated the Canada Elections Act, was the Conservative Party. It was only the Conservative Party, not the Liberal Party, not the Bloc Québécois, not the NDP. That is my first point.
My second point is that the member does not know his geography very well. He claimed that my riding abutted the former riding of Mr. Gagliano, who was a minister in previous governments. In fact, there are many kilometres between the two ridings. One riding, Mr. Gagliano's, was east Montreal, mine is west Montreal.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have egg on my face.
Let me just finish by saying that the bottom line is the Conservative Party obeyed all the campaign finance laws in this country in the past. We do so today. We will do so in the future.
My colleague from Notre-Dame-De-Grâce--Lachine can be the continuing scandal monger of the Liberal Party, but she loses credibility every day in the House of Commons when she gets up and says slanderous nonsensical things, smearing people without evidence and without information. Her constituents deserve better than that kind of nonsense. It is a waste of the House's time.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on an issue that is very important.
On October 24, I had asked the Minister of International Trade to protect Canadian jobs and to stand up for our auto industry. Not only did the minister not answer my question, which is not an always unusual thing around here, but he accused an important workers group of engaging in “fraudulent economics”.
That group was an organized union group that was visiting and talking with all members of Parliament. They had a lot of statistics and I have not been able to find any of them that were fraudulent.
I stressed that the minority Conservative government should never sign a deal that fails to eliminate non-tariff barriers. It is an issue that is important to many of us in the House. The minister replied by saying, “We clearly are focused on non-tariff barriers”. Then he said, “We are focused on tariff barriers”. Which is it?
This rubbish answer is clearly not acceptable to Canadians who are trying to understand exactly what this process is and how important these deals are, how the auto industry is extremely important and how the deal with South Korea is an extremely important one for our country.
Our manufacturing industry is in crisis and our auto industry is clearly being hit very hard, yet the government continues to negotiate a flawed free trade deal with South Korea that is bad for the auto industry and bad for Canada.
Thousands of jobs have been lost this year and more will be lost under this proposed agreement. Hence the reason that we are concerned about exactly what is in the deal and whether or not it will come to Parliament, so that all of us can have our chance to comment on it.
Just two weeks ago, Chrysler announced it will eliminate about 1,100 jobs in Brampton as part of its second restructuring in eight months. Since one job in the auto industry results in up to 7,000 spin-off jobs, those are major losses in Ontario and throughout Canada.
The minority Conservative government is selling out the auto industry in its free trade agreement negotiations with South Korea. The agreement is so dangerous as it does not provide fair access to the lucrative South Korean market. It is something that we all share. We want a free trade deal, but we want a fair deal.
If we are to improve our free trade agreement, we must first ensure that the minister and his negotiators have secured an agreement with South Korea that allows Canada's auto industry access to South Korean's large auto market. That is what a free trade deal is supposed to be doing.
The Liberal Party wants to make certain that any free trade agreement with South Korea contains mechanisms that will actually result in a free and fair deal. The minority Conservative government has refused to have a debate in Parliament on this critical issue.
Our responsibility as parliamentarians on all sides of this House means that we are better off not striking a deal at all if we are not going to strike one that is good for Canada. We must ensure that any potential South Korean free trade agreement is in the best interests of all Canadians. It is critical that the Canadian industry and workers see positive results rather than the continued attack on the domestic industry that has been the result of so many of the Conservative policies.
Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for asking for clarification on a question that she felt was not answered.
I must remind the hon. member that it was the former Liberal government that initiated the free trade discussions with Korea. Therefore, I am surprised that the hon. member is not more up to speed on what the negotiation process is all about.
Since these negotiations were launched in 2005, a free trade agreement with Korea has been a trade policy priority for Canada, and for very good reason. After all, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that Canadian businesses can compete in international markets, including important strategic markets like Korea, Canada's seventh largest trading partner.
Before launching negotiations, the government conducted comprehensive consultations with the provinces, territories, the Canadian public, businesses and non-governmental organizations. These consultations revealed broad support for an FTA with Korea.
They also revealed that beyond the elimination of tariffs and an improved environment in Korea for Canada's service providers and investors, Canadian businesses wanted the FTA to address non-tariff barriers in Korea's markets. That is why, in the FTA negotiations with Korea, Canada is seeking the most extensive, robust, state of the art provisions we have ever sought in an FTA with respect to non-tariff barriers.
This government is especially aware of the concerns expressed by the Canadian auto industry about Korea's automotive market. That is why Canada is also seeking an array of auto provisions to address specific non-tariff measures identified by the Canadian industry and to establish procedural mechanisms to identify and address potential new non-tariff barriers before they arise.
Beyond non-tariff barriers, of course Canada is seeking an ambitious FTA package on tariffs, services, investment and government procurement, to name some key areas. An FTA with Korea would eliminate all industrial tariffs, including Korea's 8% tariff on automobiles and auto parts. Korea is Canada's fifth largest destination for exports of agricultural products, so elimination of Korea's high tariffs, average applied tariffs of 52.6%, with over quota rates at 800%, will significantly improve Canadian market access in Korea.
The bottom line is that an ambitious FTA would offer gains for Canadians across the country in sectors as diverse as agriculture, agrifood, fisheries, forestry, machinery and equipment, other manufactured products, and financial and professional services. Results from preliminary economic modelling suggests that an FTA with Korea could increase Canada's total merchandise exports to that country by 56%, or $1.6 billion.
Canada's competitors are moving forward with Korea. The U.S. signed an FTA with Korea in June. At the same time, the EU is moving rapidly toward the conclusion of its own FTA with Korea, and Korea is negotiating or actively exploring FTA negotiations with the likes of Japan, Mexico, China, India and others.
Canada cannot afford to stand on the sidelines while other countries move ahead to take advantage of the globalization and the economic dynamism in Asia. We must recall that one in five jobs in Canada is supported by trade. To remain competitive, we must ensure Canadian businesses can compete in international markets, including Korea.
Let us not prejudge the outcome of the negotiations until they have concluded.
Finally, as Minister Emerson has made clear on a number of occasions, the government will only conclude FTA negotiations when they have met Canadian interests.
The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer
I would just remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that we do not use proper names, only ridings or titles.
The hon. member for York West.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, yes, we introduced the whole issue of having a free trade agreement with Korea. We were talking about a variety of deals and the government is continuing with them, but a free trade deal needs to be one that is fair for Canada, fair for consumers and fair for Canadians.
The government can have all the negotiations it wants but it is like the softwood lumber negotiations. It can negotiate but at some point I guess it just gives in and signs the deal that somebody else wants. That may be the Conservative plan but that is not our plan. The whole intention was to ensure we had a deal that was respectful of all Canadians and in the best interests of Canada.
If we are going to turn around and send a whole lot of agriculture or fish to compensate for one vehicle that is brought into Canada at a value of $15,000 or $20,000, imagine how much fish we will need to send or agricultural products before we will be compensated equally to a car.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely correct. I should have referred to the Minister of International Trade.
We are working closely with Canadians and industry to ensure that an FTA with Korea results in meaningful market access for Canadian exporters and real benefits for Canadians. In particular, the government has been working closely with the Canadian automotive industry to ensure that its views are reflected in the Canadian negotiating position.
I already mentioned in some detail the extensive FTA provisions we are seeking on non-tariff barriers, tariffs, market access for Canadian service providers, improved investment climate for Canadian investors and clear, enforceable rules on dispute settlement.
I can assure the hon. member that the FTA provisions that Canada is seeking are non-tariff barriers and, in particular, with respect to autos, go far beyond what we have ever sought before in an FTA negotiation.
Canada is seeking an FTA that will allow Canadian businesses to compete in Korean markets on a level playing field--
The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer
The hon. member for West Nova not being present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6:35 p.m.)