Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2009

Aerospace Industry

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, our government certainly does support that sector. The aerospace industry is doing well in Quebec. Lockheed Martin announced over $660 million in spending in the province. In early January, I announced a $52.3 million investment in CMC.

There is a lot of investment going on in this sector by our government and by the private sector. We continue to support this sector.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in last fall's election campaign, the Conservatives promised an injection of $200 million into the very important technology development program known as SADI, the strategic aerospace and defence initiative. However, this promised funding was not mentioned in Tuesday's budget.

As we know, this initiative is essential to maintaining Canada's very competitive position in the aerospace sector. Why was there no mention of this important program in the budget?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are fully committed to SADI and will be making announcements in due course. The economic action plan invested additional moneys. We have invested over $150 million to date with SADI. The Canadian Space Agency, which the hon. member knows well, got an additional $110 million from the economic plan.

We are on top of these issues, as the Prime Minister mentioned on a previous question, and on this question as well.

Forestry Industry

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) said a few days ago that it was impossible to help the forestry industry without violating the softwood lumber agreement. But loan guarantees and refundable tax credits for research and development do not violate WTO and NAFTA rules or the softwood lumber agreement.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the fact that his budget contains no measures for the forestry industry has nothing to do with the softwood lumber agreement but instead reflects his insensitivity toward the crisis in the forestry industry?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have measures tailored to the individual, unique circumstances in every industry and community. A spokesperson for the Forest Products Association of Canada had this to say about the budget: “The government has clearly heard the message and embraced our vision of becoming the producers of the best quality, most innovative and greenest forest products in the world.” The Bloc should support those measures.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister certainly did not read the statement by the forestry industry in Quebec, which roundly condemned his budget. We are here for Quebec, and we know whose side he is on. He says that the budget has something for everyone, yet he has given $2.7 billion to the automotive industry, which is concentrated in Ontario, but only a few million to the manufacturing and forestry industries across Canada. Again this morning, we learned that Bell Helicopter was cutting 500 jobs.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, for strictly partisan reasons, he favoured Ontario, where the automotive industry is concentrated, at the expense of Quebec?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is the sectarianism Mr. Sarkozy talks about.

The budget provides $1 billion for the community adjustment fund, another $1 billion for the community development trust, money to boost forestry industry competitiveness and other money for FPInnovations, research and development, the Canadian wood fibre centre and renewable energy, biomass and biofuel. I could go on, but the Bloc should support that.

Human Resources and Skills Development

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development made some extremely disparaging comments regarding unemployed workers when she said that the government did not want to make it lucrative for them to stay at home and get paid for it.

Does the minister understand that she insulted thousands of workers who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs or will lose them in the coming months? And does she intend to apologize?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is always sad anytime someone loses their job or is laid off. That is why our economic action plan includes a number of measures to help those people, regardless of their age. We want them to be able to work and we will give them the opportunity to take extensive training. It is the Bloc Québécois that wants to impede this.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, the minister continues to show her contempt by wrongfully opposing retraining measures and an income support program for older workers. The reality is that there are also workers aged 55 and older who cannot be retrained.

I challenge the minister here today to travel through Quebec with me and to go to Lebel-sur-Quévillon in particular to explain her twisted logic to the older workers. Will she accept my challenge? I repeat; will she accept this challenge, yes or no?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, we launched the targeted initiative for older workers two or three years ago in order to help such people. That program has been very successful and we have expanded it considerably in our economic action plan, in order to support these people even further.

However, I wonder why a gentleman of a certain age would have a colleague who said:

“Will the Minister of Finance admit that older workers cannot be retrained to work in other areas?”

We have faith in our workers, regardless of their age.

Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister is no doubt aware, the United States has had a buy American act for 76 years. It is perfectly legal under the World Trade Organization. In fact, under NAFTA, governments are allowed to buy at home in order to use taxpayer money to create jobs for workers and to support communities and their industries. Mexico, China, Japan and South Korea all have national procurement policies. It would be a good idea for Canada.

Could the Prime Minister tell us what is wrong with a buy Canadian policy, as permitted under continental and global trade rules?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we believe strongly that the proposals before the American Congress violate its trade obligations. We have a global slowdown. All the countries of the G20 have committed themselves to working together to provide stimulus packages to stimulate not just their own economies, but the world economy.

The leader of the NDP suggests we respond to this by starting a trade war with the United States. This is not advice that we will be taking.

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

Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, it is a golden opportunity right now to pursue a two-track strategy that would involve the synchronizing of North American policies on key issues like the establishment of a carbon exchange regime with the Obama administration and also to boost slumping domestic sales with a perfectly legal and appropriately designed buy Canadian strategy.

Instead of spreading fear and making threats, why does the Prime Minister not step up to the plate and stand up for Canada's industries and workers and communities?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP asks what would be wrong with policies that have us just buy here. What is wrong with it is we are a world trading leader. We can compete with the best in the world. We can sell around the world and we want to sell around the world. That is what our policy is designed to have us do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government's explanations are not logical, they are ideological. And that is another reason why, unlike the Liberal Party, we cannot have confidence in this government during this economic crisis.

Rather than attempting to scare people “with threats of trade wars”, why does the Prime Minister not ask President Obama to come and discuss trade policy by inviting him to address Parliament when he visits Canada?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the greatest ideological threat at this time is the threat of protectionism. That is the inherent danger in the bill before the American Congress and it is the reason why we oppose such measures. We intend to encourage free trade here and throughout the world.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, American protectionist measures will place thousands of Canadian jobs in jeopardy. The Conservative government's response was to simply send a letter, through Ambassador Wilson, to the Senate leaders.

How many members of the Democratic Congress has the Minister of International Trade met with since being appointed?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, it is strange that my friend says that all we did was send a letter. We actually sent many letters and we have asked for commitments from the Americans at many levels. And what results have we obtained? Many, but I will only mention one: the spokesperson for the U.S. President publicly stated that the Americans have heard our concerns and wish to do something. We have achieved results.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the Conservative minister, it is tough to meet Democrats in Congress if one does not actually know any. The Conservative government has been so focused on fawning over the Bush Republicans that it has completely ignored the Democrats, who now control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Why did the Conservatives so badly neglect the Democrats and allow their narrow ideological partisan focus to hurt Canada's national interest?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when we would appreciate some non-partisan collaboration on this issue, we get ill-informed diatribe.

We are corresponding with and dealing with elected people on a number of levels. I guess the member opposite conveniently missed it when the Democratic house leader himself publicly said that he is aware of our concerns because of our contact and that he realizes some of these concerns are justified. The Democratic house leader in the United States has taken issue with our concerns in a positive way. The member opposite should be a little more positive and helpful in his comments.

Chalk River Nuclear Facilities

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last year Conservative incompetence caused a critical shortage in medical isotopes that risked and disrupted the lives of thousands of Canadians and patients around the world. A year later, Canadians and their doctors need to know if the government has a plan to ensure a secure supply of medical isotopes. Can the new minister tell Canadians the plan to ensure that this medical crisis never happens again?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to ensuring that the medical community and Canadians get the isotope supplies they need. At Canada's request, a meeting was recently held in Paris, France, to discuss global solutions concerning the ongoing supply of medical isotopes.

I and my colleague, the Minister of Health, have been clear that ensuring a reliable source of medical isotopes is a global issue and warrants a global response. Our government's top priority has always been, and will continue to be, the health and safety of Canadians.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, another year, another Conservative crisis at Chalk River. The minister has refused to tell us how much radioactive tritium was released at Chalk River. She has refused to tell us what she was told on December 6. She will not even tell us what the status of the leak is, nor its cause, and she will not explain why, over a week after these leaks began, she informed Canadians that isotope production was “reliable”.

What is reliable about producing isotopes in a facility while it is leaking radioactive water?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, the health and safety of Canadians has always been our number one priority. As I have indicated many times in the House already, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has assured me that at no time was the public or the environment at risk and that there is no radioactive material leaking into the Ottawa River. These are very important facts. The health and safety of Canadians has always been our number one priority and will continue to be so.