House of Commons Hansard #145 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crime.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
I would like to thank the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for having occupied the chair for a few moments.
Resuming debate.
I just want to give fair warning that I am about to recognize the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord for the right of reply.
When the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjordhas finished his speech, that will be the end of the debate and the motion will be put.
The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the members who spoke in this debate today, as well as the members who spoke in the first debate. Bill C-207 is designed to fight two problems that affect the regions: the exodus of young people and the shortage of skilled labour in the regions.
In the next few minutes, I would like to respond to certain concerns my colleagues have about Bill C-207. According to Mr. Clément Desbiens, an economist with Emploi-Québec, all employment sectors in the regions will be more affected in the coming years. A document entitled Perspectives professionnelles 2005-2009 states that the demand for workers in fields related to retirement will increase. However, according to the study, workers in the regions are likely to leave for urban centres where there are more jobs in sectors such as retail sales, services, administration and finance.
According to Emploi-Québec's estimates, 250,000 jobs will be created during that period. Emploi-Québec anticipates that, for the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region alone, 18,000 new jobs will have to be filled. According to the economist, the aging of the population will be felt across the country, but its impact will be even more disastrous in the regions. The country's population growth tells the tale. Between 1996 and 2006, that is over a period of 10 years, Canada's population increased by 9.4%, while the population decreased by 8.5% in Newfoundland and Labrador, by 2.2% in Saskatchewan, and by 1.1% in New Brunswick. During that same period, the population increased by 20.9% in Alberta, by 12.7% in Ontario, and by 10.2% in British Columbia.
I would also like to provide other statistics affecting my region. Over a period of 10 years, from 1991 to 2001, the population of the Lower St. Lawrence region decreased by 2.9%. During that same period, the population of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region decreased by 2.9%, and I could provide more examples. I now come to the most affected region, that of Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, where the population decreased by 7.7% over the same period.
This is why we support this bill which addresses all the problems. It is a tool that our regions and regional businesses can use to have access to skilled labour.
The bill provides for a tax credit not exceeding $8,000 over a 52 week period. Some have suggested that it would be better if the maximum of $8,000 could be used over three years instead of one. This is, of course, something we could discuss at committee, and we are open to such a suggestion. I therefore ask all the members of this House to act on behalf of our regions and our young people.
The Conservative members opposite who spoke in the first debate, and in this one, said that the total cost would be $600 million a year. I say that they are trying to scare the public and the members of this House. For Quebec, it would come up to $30 million. So, we are talking about approximately $150 million. I will close by encouraging all members to support this bill, to really help our young people and those regions with a declining population.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
All those in favour of the motion. will please say yea.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 9, 2007, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this important issue of the lack of federal government support for Quebec's aerospace industry.
I would remind the House that during question period on March 1, 2007, the Bloc Québécois returned to the charge. For months, the Bloc had been calling on the federal government to respect the existing distribution of Canada's aerospace industry. A total of 55% to 60% of Canada's aerospace industry is in Quebec. In a contract awarded to a private company like Boeing, we would have liked to see the federal government require the company to distribute its investments in a way that reflects the current situation in Canada. The government, however, made no effort to do so. The company itself was the one to suggest a rate of 30%. Thirty per cent is clearly insufficient. This launched an immense offensive from within the entire Quebec aerospace industry—from large and small companies alike—to tell the federal government that Quebec must receive its fair share.
They also appealed directly to the company. The company showed some sensitivity to the issue, but the federal government showed absolutely none. When the project was announced, the two ministers present, who both happen to be from Quebec, were unable to say how the spinoffs of the project would be divided. They called all of Canada the region. This showed complete disregard for the fact that Quebec has developed an expertise and has 55% to 60% of the aerospace industry within its borders. We are talking about thousands of jobs.
The commitment of 30% means that Quebec will lose 18,500 jobs per year, because the federal government did not want to impose a standard that simply corresponded to the current distribution. In the past, we have seen the government make significant investments in the automotive sector, for instance, and the Province of Ontario came out ahead, because that region was identified as where most of the industry is located.
The Conservative government now refuses to make such commitments in the aerospace sector. Consequently, Boeing, which subcontracts its distribution and production chain, will favour these subcontractors, which is quite normal. However, this chain of subcontractors may not necessarily include Quebec sub-contractors. Bombardier is one of Boeing's competitors. Do we believe that Boeing will subcontract to its Quebec competitor? I think that is absolutely ridiculous.
On an opposition day, we tabled a motion, supported by the Liberal Party, to the effect that the existing distribution in Canada had to be respected in order for each region—Quebec and the other provinces—to receive the share of spinoffs from this contract corresponding to the actual impact. Otherwise, the rules of the game are changed and a private company is given the responsibility for drastically altering the distribution.
Given the overall situation, and after the intervention of the Leader of the Bloc Québécois and myself on March 1, and in view of several measures that we took on opposition day, can the government guarantee that Quebec will receive 60% of the spin-offs, which it deserves, in order to respect the current distribution for each region in Canada? Will the government take positive action and promise to guarantee the 60% share?
Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and answer the question about the Quebec aerospace industry, and the distribution of industrial benefits.
The Government of Canada's approach to industrial benefits recognizes the strengths and capabilities of Canada's aerospace and defence industry from coast to coast. It is fair, it is open, and it is designed to ensure that prime contractors can build long-lasting, sustainable business relationships with Canada's aerospace and defence sector.
Industry Canada has been dealing with the industrial and regional benefits policy for over 20 years now. The department has always allowed companies to make investments in Canada based on best business practices and what makes the most sense to them. The government will continue with that policy to ensure that it is fair across the entire country.
This is an exceptionally good time for Canada's aerospace industry. Canadian aerospace companies have helped to develop one of the world's strongest aerospace industries, an industry that employs about 75,000 highly skilled workers and that adds to the knowledge economy in every region of Canada.
Canada's new government has done a great deal to secure new opportunities for Canada's aerospace and defence industry both inside and outside Quebec. We are securing significant industrial benefits from the “Canada First” defence procurements and we have signed on to the next phase of the joint strike fighter program, again securing billions of dollars of opportunities for our world class companies.
For all procurements, Industry Canada officials work closely with the regional development agencies: the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Western Economic Diversification, and the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Together they identify Canadian companies that might be interested in the opportunities available.
They also work directly with Canadian companies from coast to coast to highlight the opportunities that are available, work with the companies that are bidding on contracts to emphasize the importance of cross-country involvement, and highlight the abilities of Canadian companies.
Our position on defence procurement is clear. All regions of Canada will be able to benefit. Canadian aerospace and defence firms have the competence, the expertise and the ability.
For aerospace related projects, we insist that industrial benefits be of high value and high technology. We are asking that at least 30% of the spinoff projects be targeted to nine key technologies that have been identified in collaboration with the industry.
For the C-17 Globemaster procurement, Boeing must provide 100% industrial and regional benefits as measured in Canadian content value. This applies to the purchase of the aircraft and for the portions of the in-service support that Boeing is responsible for. Fifty per cent of benefits must go to the aerospace and defence sector.
There are other requirements, such as 15% participation by small and medium sized businesses, allowing smaller players in the industry to get the best possible benefit now and well into the future from these procurements. We encourage prime contractors to undertake partnerships that make real business sense.
Quebec aerospace companies have the competence, the expertise, and the ability needed to be involved over the life of the contract. We are confident that they will position themselves well within the context of our military procurements.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is discouraging to hear my colleague say things like that. We get the impression that we will never be able to help them make progress. Nevertheless, we managed to do so with the Technology Partnerships Canada program. The Conservatives spent month after month, year after year criticizing the program. It was not until after the last election that our arguments eventually convinced them to bring the program back. Now $900 million will go to the aerospace sector, and that is good. That sector needs the money badly if it is to compete with other countries around the world.
In that same spirit of optimism, I would invite my colleague to take another look at the reality of the situation and make sure that, in the end, the federal government gives Quebec contracts that will maintain the existing distribution. In this case, contrary to what happens with private companies, this is a company that received a contract without going through a tendering process. The federal government will have to deliver the goods for Quebec's 60% share of the aerospace industry.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Mr. Speaker, what is frustrating is listening to the Bloc because it just does not listen. After 1993 Lucien Bouchard vowed his party would be around for just one Parliament, that win or lose an independence referendum, there would be no role for the Bloc afterward.
The member's question was asked and answered in the House, asked and answered in the national defence committee, asked and answered and voted down on an opposition day, and today he heard the same answer. Canada's new government is working hard to ensure our aerospace and defence industry is strong.
In the January 17, 2007 edition of the National Post, Laura Guzzo pointed out, “The [Montreal] aerospace industry is having a good year. In fact, it might be even better than last year. And that is no small feat.
We insist that every dollar that companies receive from our defence procurements is matched by a dollar of economic activity in this country. Canada's aerospace and defence companies will benefit from our “Canada First” procurements.
Mr. Bouchard was right. There is no role for the Bloc in Ottawa. I hope this is the last time this member and this party waste valuable time in the House with this question.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, on March 23 during question period I asked several questions of the Minister of National Defence. I pointed out that he had already misled the House and had to apologize and that it appeared he had done so again, and I called for his resignation.
How just a little bit of time causes things to evolve. Since then, it is not just the defence minister who is now missing in action who has misled the House, we have had changing stories, shifting sands from the Conservative government on the issue of the Afghan detainees since that time. Virtually every day the Conservatives have changed their story.
The Conservatives, for instance, were warned of possible human rights abuses in Afghan prisons as early as last year, and the number of disturbing reports grows with every passing day, but the government continues to deny the existence of a problem. To make matters worse, as I just mentioned, the Minister of National Defence has been missing in action in this House. Every single question that has been directed to the Minister of National Defence has been answered by another member of the Conservative cabinet.
If the Prime Minister does not have enough confidence in his own defence minister to allow him to answer questions in the House, how can he possibly allow that defence minister to remain the leader of our armed forces? The Prime Minister must fire the national defence minister and appoint a new one who hopefully will get to the bottom of this issue.
Let me give a few salient points. Every single one of the national defence minister's assertions regarding the Afghan detainees and the assertions of the Conservative government itself has been contradicted at every turn by top military officials, international organizations and the media.
We learned they denied the existence of a report on the state of Afghan prisons authored by Canadian diplomats. Then lo and behold, the report was found. They denied the presence of torture and human rights abuses in Afghan jails. Then media reports proved that there were numerous accounts of instances of torture and abuse. The diplomats' report contained blacked out sections. Then it was revealed that the blacked out sections contained information confirming widespread abuse and torture. Now the Information Commissioner is investigating why such critical sections of that report were censored when they present no threat to national security.
The Conservative government and the Minister of National Defence claimed there was no evidence that Afghan authorities were blocking access to prisons, but days earlier the head of the human rights commission in Kandahar said that while legally his commission had permission to visit prisoners, the Afghan authorities in those prisons do not permit it.
The defence minister suddenly announced a new detainee monitoring agreement had been reached, but it was to the surprise of the foreign affairs minister and Canada's chief of defence staff. The next day the Prime Minister said that no such deal had been concluded.
They then changed tactics and claimed that Correctional Service of Canada officials had been monitoring detainees all along. Then officials in Canada and Afghanistan contradicted these claims, clarifying that the two Correctional Service of Canada officials were there to conduct training and improve prison conditions, not to monitor detainees.
I ask simply--
Conservative
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
The hon. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Helena Guergis ConservativeSecretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport)
Mr. Speaker, in responding to the hon. member's question, it would be useful to begin by recalling the purpose of Canada's engagement in Afghanistan. We are there contributing to a UN-sanctioned, NATO-led mission to help Afghanistan rebuild its society, institutions and economy.
Sixty countries in the international community helped developed a plan for Afghanistan. Called the Afghanistan Compact, it belongs to the government of Afghanistan. There are 37 countries on the ground that are implementing the plan at the request of the Afghanistan government.
Canada is there to help provide a secure environment in which development and democracy can flourish and to help restore hope to the Afghan people.
As Canadian Forces help provide security, inevitably they will detain individuals suspected of engaging in insurgent, criminal or terrorist activities. These individuals are transferred to Afghan authorities under the December 2005 arrangement negotiated by the previous Liberal government. This includes a commitment to treat detainees humanely.
Despite being in Afghanistan since 2002, and despite having received four out of five Afghanistan reports, the previous Liberal government did absolutely nothing to develop a policy for detainees until one month before they were fired by Canadians.
It will be our government that will improve this arrangement. In February, Canada strengthened its partnership with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, a body designated under the Afghan constitution to monitor human rights in Afghanistan.
This enhancement, which the Liberals did not do, came through an exchange of letters. These letters allow Canada to notify the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission of transfers, and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission to inform Canada if it learns of detainee mistreatment by Canada, and also the Afghan authorities.
The choice of the human rights commission is consistent with Canada's efforts to reinforce Afghanistan's sovereignty, strengthen governance and improve the rule of law. Moreover, this arrangement helps support indigenous institution building, something that Canada strongly supports.
Canadian representatives have worked with Afghan authorities to ensure that the human rights commission obtains access to facilities where detainees transferred by Canadian Forces are held. In addition, Canada is exploring ways of providing further support to the human rights commission, including capacity building and logistical and technical assistance where appropriate, to help the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission fulfill its important role.
For example, Canada has been deeply engaged in assisting the democratically elected government of Afghanistan to build its own justice, policing and correctional systems since 2002. Let us remember that this is a country that has had 30 years of tyranny.
Currently this includes mentoring, training and capacity building for the Afghan national police and the Afghan prison system. Officials in our Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as well as the RCMP and Correctional Service Canada, are also stationed in Kandahar to help provide such support.
The allegations that have been made about the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan are taken very seriously by the Government of Canada. Let us remember that these are allegations that are made by Taliban alleged terrorist detainees.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the Conservative government. The Conservatives knew about the alleged atrocities and they hid it.
Now it has come to light that there are serious allegations about possible torture and atrocities being committed by Afghan authorities, to whom our Canadian military has turned over suspected terrorists, yes, but also other people, and there is the presumption of innocence, which the Conservative government appears to have forgotten about.
The Conservatives literally obfuscated the truth. They change their story every single day.
Here this junior minister sits as the mouthpiece for that Conservative government and that Prime Minister and does not address the issue. The issue is a Minister of National Defence who misled the House repeatedly--
Conservative
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
The hon. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, it really is unfortunate that far too often the members of the Liberal Party have to resort to personal attacks when they find they are losing arguments.
The simple fact of the matter is that the Government of Canada has an arrangement with the government of Afghanistan and with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. There is an investigation going on with regard to these allegations, but they are general allegations that have been received, I remind the hon. member, since 2002, and four out of five reports in which allegations were received were under the Liberal Party. The Liberals did absolutely nothing with these allegations.
What we see from the members of the Liberal Party is that they continue to take the side of the Taliban detainees, to take their word of allegations of being mistreated as the gospel truth, and they choose to ignore what our brave Canadian men and women are saying. It is unfortunate.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East and debate budget 2007, the second budget introduced by the Conservatives since assuming office in 2006.
Budget 2007 will go down as the most visionless and meanspirited budget in Canadian history. In fact, with $12.5 billion in new spending, the finance minister has distinguished himself as the biggest-spending minister in Canadian history. This is quite a feat.
When the Progressive Conservatives were finally defeated in 1993, they left the Liberal government with a $42 billion deficit and a declaration from the Wall Street Journal that Canada was on the road to becoming a financial basket case. While the Conservatives love to repeat the empty rhetoric that the Liberals did nothing for 13 years, the fact remains that it was the Liberal government that turned around the desperate financial crisis, eliminated the deficit and began paying off Canada's national debt as early as 1998.
Let us fast forward to 2006,when the Conservatives inherited a $17 billion surplus and the lowest unemployment rate since 1970, and what do we see? The largest spending spree in Canada. But what did they spend it on? They spent it on gimmicks, pure gimmicks. So much for the Prime Minister and his Conservative talk about responsible government. Never before has so little been achieved with so much.
What are some of the gimmicks?
I asked the Minister of Finance a simple question. How has his budget helped real people with real problems? As for Marie who earns $40,000 and Judy who earns $22,000, how do they benefit from the working income tax benefit or from the child tax credit? They are either too poor or too rich. At $40,000, for pension splitting, how do they benefit?
When Canadians filed their income taxes, they also discovered another gimmick. The Conservatives claimed that they made a tax cut. Instead, those earning $36,000 a year or less actually experienced a tax increase from 15% to 15.5%. Does that sound like fairness?
Why is it that the neo-conservative budget is at the expense of the very vulnerable in society? This put 20,000 Canadians, most of them seniors, back onto the tax rolls. As an example, a person earning $15,000 actually experienced a tax increase of $149.
The Conservatives have squandered an opportunity. What did budget 2007 say about affordable housing? It said nothing, zip, zero.
How about day care spaces? Sadly, there was not one single space. In budget 2006, the Conservatives' hare-brained scheme to give tax breaks to the private sector crashed and burned when CEOs across the country universally rejected the plan.
How about the bombshell the finance minister dropped on October 31 when he wiped out over $20 billion in retirement savings with the decision to cut income trusts?
I would like to ask the minister or his representative how the government intends to assist Canadian investors, many of them seniors, who lost as much as 50% of their retirement income when the Conservatives broke their election promises.
Lynne Yelich ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Don Valley East. At least she has a lot of respect for the House and does not engage in personal attacks, like the previous speaker, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I find it disgusting, and I thank the member for Don Valley East for her decorum.
However, I do find it odd that she would criticize our budget of 2007 for not assisting low income Canadians, specifically low income single moms, when in reality, the budget of 2006 did just that.
For instance, let us take the example of one of a member's constituents, a hypothetical single working mother of two earning $30,000 a year in Thorncliffe.
Under the former Liberal government, of which the member was a part, that single mom would have paid over $400 in taxes. However, because of the Conservative government's first two budgets, which the member voted against, that single mother's tax bill is zero. That $400 in tax relief may not seem much to a Liberal, but to that single mom in Thorncliffe Park, it will make a big difference in her life. In fact, in our first two budgets, we removed 885,000 Canadians off the tax rolls altogether.
Our budgets have also brought in numerous measures benefiting those with incomes too low to pay personal income tax, like the one point GST cut and the $1,200 universal child care benefit for families with children under six. These new initiatives are in addition to already existing support for low income families provided through the GST credit, the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement.
A major positive development for low income Canadians in budget 2007 was the working income tax benefit, a new initiative assisting Canadians into a more prosperous life for themselves and their families.
I want to quote a few of the organizations and the individuals who found our budget very worthy. The Canadian Labour Congress called the benefit an initiative “worthy of support”. The Canadian Association for Community Living said it would “assist people with disabilities over the welfare wall”. The Retail Council of Canada said it “should help to reduce the disincentives for some individuals to leave welfare with paid work”.
I find it odd that the member for Don Valley East would vote against a budget that restored the fiscal balance, bringing federal support for Ontario to $12.8 billion. Maybe she should have consulted with some of her provincial colleagues before she voted against the budget.
Maybe she should have consulted with Premier Dalton McGuinty, who said that budget 2007 “represents real progress for Ontarians”. Perhaps she should have talked to the finance minister, Greg Sorbara, who said there are “real positives for Ontario” in budget 2007. Maybe she should have spoken to the energy minister, Dwight Duncan, who said budget 2007 was “a good step forward and the kind of thing we wanted to see”.
I want to ask the member for Don Valley East this. Was Dalton McGuinty wrong? Was Greg Sorbara wrong? Was Dwight Duncan wrong? Was Bob Delaney wrong. I would like to know what the member for Don Valley East thinks of that.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to first correct the member. Thorncliffe is not in my riding. However, 15% versus 15.5% increase is an increase, and another $350. I do not think the member knows math.
A person earning $22,000 a year cannot benefit out of the working income tax benefit. They are too rich for that and too poor for the child tax credit. These are gimmicks.
I can assure the member that voters in my riding of Don Valley East do not forget it. They want child care spaces. They have not forgot the income trust fiasco.
When will the government own up to the fact that this is a visionless budget, a gimmicky budget, which has created no spaces and has not helped any person who is vulnerable. Instead, it has put 200,000 seniors back on to the tax rolls.
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where that member lives because I just listed all the Ontario ministers and the premier, who agreed with the budget, which means they are speaking for their constituents. They are Ontarians, so I am not sure where the member lives.
We are taking steps to help all Canadians, including hard-working single moms. I have already outlined numerous initiatives in budget 2007 that will benefit low income workers, including the low income single parents.
Other initiatives include new spending measures such as an investment of $250 million to provinces and territories for the creation of new child care spaces.
The hon. member's constituents particularly benefit from the support in budget 2007, which she voted against: $963 million to fund the GTA transit projects, which she voted against; $586 million from the Canada ecotrust, which she voted against; $574 million for the Canada-Ontario agreement, which she voted against; $205.4 million for patient wait times, which she voted against; $117.2 million—
Conservative
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:35 p.m.)