Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2007

Aerospace Industry

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister kept saying that he needed ministers to represent Quebec. However, what he forgot to tell Quebeckers—and the Boeing contract is a blatant example— is that he needed Quebec ministers to work against Quebec. New government, but same old Canadian formula for putting Quebec in its place.

Will the Minister of Transport and the political lieutenant for Quebec admit that by refusing to demand that Quebec be given its fair share, or about 60% of the contract spinoffs, the Quebec ministers, with an eye to their jobs, chose to put Canada ahead of Quebec's interests?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we will make no such admissions since they are not true.

The facts are as follows. Colleagues on this side of the House, whether they are members or ministers, continue to serve the interests of Quebec.

With regard to this matter, we are confident that in Canada, and especially in Quebec, the aerospace industry will earn its stripes, but that will depend on the maturity of this industry and its ability to do the job.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec was entitled to receive its due, that is the lion's share of the spinoffs. However to advance their careers, at least in the short term, the Conservative ministers from Quebec chose to abdicate their responsibilities to Quebeckers. The image is striking: in Trenton, Ontario, two Quebeckers will sign the contract and make official the surrender of the Quebec Conservatives.

Is the Minister of Transport and the political lieutenant for Quebec not ashamed to be part of such a regrettable spectacle, one that Quebeckers will surely remember in the next election?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am always flabbergasted by this kind of talk. To try to do something about the mystery of Quebec City, their solution was to parachute someone from Montreal into that riding.

With regard to the question, it is a little bit ridiculous to have the Bloc Québécois dictate economic development strategies for Canada. Its separation project is the most serious threat to the Canadian economy.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Trenton, Ontario—which must now be Canada's new aerospace capital—the government is about to confirm that it is abandoning the Quebec aerospace industry with the blessing of Conservative ministers and members from Quebec.

How can Conservative ministers from Quebec be yes-men to such a betrayal? It is obvious that they are nothing but a bunch of doormats.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to ensuring positive economic spinoffs, dollar for dollar, from our military investments, at the same time strengthening Canada's industrial base.

This is exactly what we are doing. Under the IRB policy, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Industry to ensure that investments made here in Canada are of the highest quality. We will continue to work for that for our industries.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how interesting that a member from Ontario leaps to the defence of the Quebec doormats when people start asking questions.

A year after they were elected, the Conservative members from Quebec have turned into the sycophantic servants of the federal powers that be.

How will they explain to their voters that they sold Quebec out to satisfy Canada? They will have to tell their voters that they have sunk about as low as cowards can.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been sounding like a broken record ever since it first came here. They accuse us of being traitors and doormats for the industry, yet the only people getting in Quebec's way and interfering with its progress are the members of the Bloc Québécois. Once again, I must say that if, at the very least, they participated actively in developing their communities, that would mean something. But that is not what they do. Every time a Quebec company has a chance to demonstrate its ability to participate in the world market, the Bloc steps in to quell their ambitions. Doormats indeed.

The Environment

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the experts have submitted their report to the Paris conference, which is currently underway. They predict that we will see an increase in heat waves and heavy precipitation. We will also see more tsunamis and cyclones. The crisis is both real and immediate, that much is clear.

When will the government take action, beginning, for example, with cancelling the massive subsidies to the big oil and gas companies?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, is in Paris today. Of course, we all recognize that climate change exists. We have often said this and my colleague reiterated that fact.

There is no denying the determination shown by the scientific community and I must assure my hon. colleague that action is being taken. In fact, just a few weeks ago, we announced nearly $2 billion in investments, specifically targeted at precise and concrete action.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the billions of dollars the government is proposing to invest in this issue over the years, the fact is that right now it is investing $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money a year in the big oil and gas companies. These are the most polluting industries and they are also the most profitable.

Why will the government not take action now and simply stand up and say that it is no longer going to put tax dollars like the previous government did, like it continues to do, into these big oil and gas companies that frankly have profits that are going through the roof and gouge people every day at the pumps?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is we have to take an approach here that is constructive and not destructive. The government is working on ways to strengthen not only our economy and remain competitive but at the same time go out and do what we have to do in terms of reducing greenhouse gases and reducing air pollution.

That is the reason why we presented a piece of legislation that is being discussed in committee, a piece of legislation that wants us to regulate the industry across the sector. We are looking for everybody's--

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Bourassa.

Aerospace Industry

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask this question as a federalist Quebecker.

In the Boeing C-17 affair, it is now clear that Canada will not see the direct economic spinoffs it needs to develop the aerospace industry, not in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada. The purchase of the C-17s demonstrated to what extent the Conservatives care more about Boeing's interests than the interests of Canadians. However, the terms of the contract with Boeing could be hiding other unpleasant surprises.

Did the Prime Minister have an agreement with President Bush for us to be excluded from the American security regulations—ITAR—thereby also excluding us from the discriminatory American dual-citizenship trade policy?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this member should be embarrassed. This member sat at the cabinet table with the Liberal government for 13 years and ignored industry. There were zero benefits to industry and zero jobs. This member should be embarrassed for bringing that up.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that man will remain parliamentary secretary for a long time.

Yesterday, the unelected phantom minister, Michael Fortier, said “nothing in that contract will prevent any Canadian of any religion or nationality from working on those planes,--”.

Now, the only way to do so is to be excluded from ITAR, the American regulations.

We have learned that the C-17 contract will not be under a foreign military sale, so ITAR will apply, meaning that a contractor will not be able to keep an employee if he or she has double citizenship from one of the 25 countries banned by the U.S.A.

Who is protecting our charter--

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the member has run out of time with his theatrics. The reality on this subject is that we have been working very closely with American officials to bring this issue to the forefront. We want to ensure that both countries will be able to benefit from the ongoing discussions.

We know that the member opposite would much prefer the approach that was taken by the previous government, which was of course to rent planes, not to build planes, not to give the Canadian forces the ability to transport their own troops, and to work with other countries on these important missions. He wanted to rent planes.

Afghanistan

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our mission in Afghanistan will only succeed if we ensure that all elements of the treaty approach are followed, yet the government has seriously neglected the diplomatic and development component.

I ask the minister responsible for international development, why is the government spending 10 times more on the combat mission than it is on reconstruction and development in Afghanistan?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, but once again his facts are very far from the truth.

The actual facts are that we need to spend money to defend the people who are there doing the development work. We heard this loud and clear from the defence committee that just returned from there. In fact, members from the member's own caucus said how important it was that we provide defence for the people doing the development.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what our members conveyed. There is a lack of information about the development and what is being done in Afghanistan.

Last year Colonel Heatherington said that we would see development projects completed by the year 2006. Well, it is 2007. The members of this House just returned and they saw disappointing results.

The reality is that the minister is not getting the job done. Why?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, it is far from the fact that the job is not getting done. We are seeing irrigation water flowing in canals that Canada's money has built.

We are seeing girls back in school who were not in school two years ago. We have solid quotes from the members who were there that defined how important security was before we let our Canadian people, who are doing the good work, go out in the country to help. They are getting the job done and it is very unfortunate that we criticize the good work they are doing.

Aerospace Industry

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada wins. Boeing will get its contract without enough spinoffs for all of Quebec. The Minister of Industry, a faithful servant of the Montreal Economic Institute, is the submissive messenger.

How can the Minister of Industry claim to defend the Quebec economy when, from the very beginning, he calmly accepted the choice of Boeing, which penalized all of Quebec?

No matter if they are federalists or sovereignists, all Quebeckers are penalized by the subservient attitude of the Minister of Industry.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth.

Under our process, it is a fair bidding process and there are enough benefits for this procurement to be shared across all Canada.

The real issue here is for Quebec, how many jobs were created by the Bloc Québécois? Zero. How many benefits were there for Quebec aerospace? Zero. How many benefits were there for the industry in Quebec? Zero. The Bloc Québécois gets an F while the government gets an A for action.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what he said is very typical of the Conservatives. The Minister of Industry is using the free market as an excuse for not acting in Quebec's interest.

Consequently, the Minister of Industry, who is from Quebec—as is the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities—is directly contributing to the weakening of Quebec's aerospace industry, and he knows it. All Conservative members from Quebec know it.

This kind of pitiful performance makes Quebeckers wonder what kind of wimp we have as a Minister of Industry.