Debates of Dec. 13th, 2007

The Environment

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that did not answer my question. By choosing 2006, the Prime Minister is favouring anyone who continued polluting between 1990 and 2006, including oil and gas companies in particular. These same oil and gas companies that, for 16 years, made fewer efforts than the others will still be able to sell carbon credits, even if they are reducing only the intensity of their emissions.

Will the Prime Minister admit that by choosing 2006, he is choosing to compensate major polluters such as oil and gas companies by applying the polluter-paid principle instead of the polluter-pay principle?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the member well knows our plan, that all the major emitters will need to reduce their emissions.

In fact, it was yesterday that the Minister of the Environment put industry on notice that within six months they would need to give their emissions reports. Those targets will be strictly enforced.

Canada has made a commitment of absolute reductions of 20% by 2020. That is huge. It is 150 megatonnes. We are getting it done.

Canada Summer Jobs Program

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after the Bloc Québécois' months of hard work on the Canada summer jobs file, the government finally saw the light and agreed to our proposals for the program. Nevertheless, we must not forget that the government's stalling tactics resulted in a delay in the creation of new summer jobs in 2007. If the minister had not been so stubborn, he would have implemented all of our recommendations faster.

Does the minister acknowledge that while he was waffling obstinately, many young people missed out on good jobs, and many organizations shut down and failed to accomplish their missions within their communities?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend congratulations for the successful launch of the new Canada summer jobs initiative, but it really belongs to the caucus.

It is true that we have launched an outstanding Canada summer jobs initiative, building on the great success of last year. The member is wrong though when she states that it did not work for people last year.

There were 18,000 not-for-profit organizations that hired 42,000 students across the country. We are very proud of that.

Guaranteed Income Supplement

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has changed his mind and decided to go with the Bloc Québécois' proposals, he should do the same thing with the guaranteed income supplement for the thousands of seniors who have also been penalized because of his false promises and mistakes.

Will the minister grant seniors full retroactivity for the guaranteed income supplement and introduce poverty level indexing, or will he do as the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean did last week in Rivière-du-Loup and tell seniors that all they have to do to get their money is vote for the right party?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor. A question has been asked and we must hear the answer.

The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc for its new-found interest in this issue. It was the government that moved to address this issue last spring in Bill C-36. We addressed it so that in the future no one who fills out his or her guaranteed income supplement would ever need to re-apply.

The Bloc has been silent on this issue right up until now. We are addressing the issue. Because of this government, seniors are better off today than they have ever been, and we will continue to improve on that record.

Manufacturing Industry

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the dollar started its rise, more than 400,000 jobs have been lost in our manufacturing sector and another 50,000 could be lost by next June.

In short, the sector is hemorrhaging jobs and the government is totally indifferent. It has ignored 21 of the 22 unanimous and practical recommendations from the industry committee.

Just what does the minister plan to do to defend Canada's manufacturing heartland and tens of thousands of jobs?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member gets her statistics but it is very clear that in this year, to date, 388,000 jobs have been created in the Canadian economy.

What this Minister of Finance is doing is creating a sound fiscal framework, a fiscal framework that involves the lowest corporate income taxes anywhere in any G-8 country and sound policies on accelerated capital cost allowance that will benefit the manufacturing sector.

What Canadian industry wants to do is to compete and win and we can do that with the sound fiscal framework that this government is creating.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I get my statistics from Statistics Canada.

Tax cuts cannot help businesses that have already shut down or have no income left to tax.

What the manufacturing sector needs and what Canadians demand is an industrial strategy that will make this country competitive around the world and create jobs here at home.

Could anybody in the government tell Canadians what the government's strategy is? Does anyone in the government even care?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. What Canadians need and what the manufacturing sector needs is a Conservative government, a Conservative government that creates a sound fiscal framework and that is creating smart fiscal policies.

Every time the Minister of Finance brings forward those kinds of measures, the Liberals vote against them. Shame on them.

Income Trusts

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after the income trust massacre, the finance minister was warned that the trusts had become sitting ducks for takeovers. Now, Deloitte, hardly a bunch of idiots, has released a report telling us that 70% of those trust buyouts were by those who pay little or no tax.

We have Canadians who have lost billions of their savings and we have the government that has lost hundreds of millions in tax.

Was this the minister's plan or was this one of the numerous areas where he just did not--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. Minister of Finance.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the income trust decision was absolutely the right thing to do for the productivity of the nation. Who said that? The member for Markham—Unionville, who is hardly an idiot.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that weak and out of context quote does not stand the passage of time.

Let us recap this fiasco. The Prime Minister campaigns to never tax income trusts. The finance minister taxes income trusts.

Canadians lose $25 billion overnight and the minister says that it was because he wanted to collect more taxes. He then instigates a cover-up with his now infamous blacked out document.

Seniors lose billions and the Deloitte report shows that the government will not get its taxes.

I know pride cometh before the fall but will he not even say oops?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the original decision by the Liberals when they were in government, when the member for Wascana was the minister of finance and the member for Markham—Unionville was the minister of revenue, was to tax income trusts. They even sent some emails around about it, sent by the member for Kings--Hants.

Now they decide, when we make the announcement on income trusts, that it is a good idea. But then they decide, “No, no, it's not a good idea. We're going to tax them maybe at 10% or 20%”.

Three different plans from the members opposite. I know it is not fair but it is true.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in recent days the media have reported on a caregiver who was refused a temporary work visa because she did not meet the language requirements.

Yesterday, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that she would look into the case.

Could the minister please inform the House of any developments in this regard?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

We have two official languages in this country and I can assure you that our government is committed to respecting them.

I am pleased to inform the House today that, after reviewing this case, I have requested that a temporary resident permit be issued enabling this individual to work as a live-in caregiver for this family.

Seniors

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a simple mistake by Statistics Canada resulted in a botched formula for inflation from 2001 to 2006. The consequence is that the Canada pension plan, old age security, and the guaranteed income supplement have been underpaid to every single senior in the country.

The minister who is supposed to represent seniors at the cabinet table admits the mistake but says, “too bad, so sad”.

Why is the government refusing to pay seniors what is rightfully theirs?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because of this government that seniors today have more money in their pockets, lower taxes, better programming, and an enhanced new horizons program.

As the member says, they have an outstanding minister representing their point of view at the cabinet table, something the NDP has always voted against.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because of this government that we have two million seniors living in poverty today and that number is growing.

Retired firefighters, police and municipal employees are all waiting for government action. Why? Because they all got dinged twice by this government: once when they lost out on CPP and OAS, and the second time when the cost of living on their employer pension was impacted by StatsCan as well.

The government can find billions of dollars for corporate tax cuts. Why can it not find the money to pay back seniors for a mistake that the government made?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, the member is completely wrong. The fact is the government has moved on a number of occasions to improve things for seniors. Recently, NDP members had the chance to show that they really support seniors and failed to do it.

We have moved as a government to lift 385,000 Canadians right off the tax rolls, low income Canadians, many thousands of whom are seniors and the NDP of course voted against it.

Afghanistan

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs declared in committee that “the development and reconstruction mandate [in Afghanistan to which] Canada is committed until 2011 with the Compact and the other nations” and that “when speaking of Mr. Manley's mandate ...we are speaking only of the military mission”.

Has the Conservative government already decided to use Canada's commitment to development as a pretext for keeping our troops in Afghanistan, no matter what Mr. Manley's report says?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows Canada is in Afghanistan helping to rebuild a country that has suffered 30 years of violence and tyranny.

We are also there helping to rebuild the Afghan army, to build a police service, so that the Afghan people can have a system in place that can ensure their security and safety.

We have said over and over again that Canada's current military mission will end in 2009.

I am not sure why the hon. member continues to ask this question. We have been very clear. I want to point out that the Liberal Party did not bring major decisions like this to the House. We will.