Debates of March 3rd, 2009

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, if there is a hand on the tiller more wobbly than the Prime Minister's, it can only belong to the Finance Minister. When he says Ontario is the last place to invest, when he lurches from claims of balanced budgets in November, which nobody believed, to $84 billion in deficits two months later, how can he possibly instill Canadians with a much needed sense of confidence at this moment of economic crisis?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his warm remarks. It is March now.

The biggest budget in recent Canadian history was introduced on January 27. The Liberal opposition members said they were going to support it. The budget implementation bill is still in the House today on March 3. Not one penny of stimulus has gone out to the Canadians who need the help--

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Your House leader has scheduled a vote this afternoon.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

--including the Canadians who live in Wascana.

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

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister, of all people, ought to know that a penny of fiscal stimulus before April 1 is illegal. The act will be passed in plenty of time.

He has treated his previous statements as mini budgets. Last fall, with job losses mounting in Canada in the midst of its worst economic performance in decades, the minister tabled an economic statement that did nothing at all. And just today he described it as “--just that: an economic statement. It was not a budget. It was not an economic plan”.

Why did he have no plan when Canada needed it most?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a severe global recession and Canada is doing better than most countries. However, Canada is significantly affected by this recession. It is important that we get the money out there working for Canadians.

I am very heartened by the fact that the opposition critic for finance now says the act will be passed in time. I am sure that is the message that he will give to the Liberal senators in the Senate to make sure the bill is passed promptly when it goes to the Senate, I hope within a few days.

Forestry Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, the economic crisis is deepening but the government still refuses to help the forestry industry, which is in serious difficulty. The government has given billions of dollars to the automobile industry but only $170 million to forestry. This is only enough to continue funding programs that already exist. There are no loan guarantees for the companies on the pretext that they are illegal. But that is not true.

Could the Prime Minister tell us which article in the softwood lumber agreement forbids him to provide loan guarantees to industries?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc should know that the agreement with the United States forbids direct subsidies to companies in this industry. That is why we have been helping it with incentives to promote renewable energy and innovation as well as measures to assist the working people in these communities. The industry is very disappointed with the Bloc’s opposition to these measures that are so important for it and for these communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should know that loan guarantees are not subsidies. Canada’s export assistance is based on loan guarantees. He did not cite the article because he knows it does not exist.

Still regarding the softwood lumber agreement, the London tribunal has ruled that eastern Canada—including Quebec and Ontario—exported too much wood in the first six months of 2007. It turns out that Ontario was mostly responsible for exceeding the quotas during this period, with 60% of the excess. Ontario should therefore assume 60% of the penalties.

Will the Prime Minister promise to make Ontario pay its fair share of the penalties so that Quebec is not unfairly disadvantaged?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Bloc is trying to divide Canadians, setting Ontario against Quebec. That is the real purpose of this question. It is not really to help the forest industry but just another way to sow division and discord. That is what Canadians have learned to expect from an extremist party like that.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, in January alone, 129,000 jobs were lost. That means an additional 4,000 unemployed people every day. It is urgent that the government help these people, and lowering taxes is not the answer. Eliminating the employment insurance waiting period would immediately put money into the pockets of the unemployed while contributing to stimulating the economy.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to get rid of this unfair penalty?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have explained many times to the hon. member, we held cross-country consultations before preparing the budget. We asked employees and employers what they wanted to see in the budget in terms of employment insurance, and they told us that they wanted a longer eligibility period. That is what we did. We have provided these additional five weeks in response to their request. Why can he not accept these five weeks as an answer?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister should tell us who she consulted. Eliminating the waiting period would, in our opinion, be a simple and effective measure. It would correct an injustice against those who are victims of the crisis.

After skimming $54 billion from the employment insurance fund, does the government understand the moral obligation it has to implement this measure?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple: people who have the biggest need should have the most benefits. That is why we have added five weeks at the end of the employment insurance benefit period. It means that those with the biggest need will have benefits for a longer time, just when they need it most.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is using the economic crisis to create its own secret fund similar to the one denounced by the Auditor General and Justice Gomery. The government refuses to provide an investment plan for the $3 billion. There are no objectives, conditions or regulations. The Conservatives want to have carte blanche. It is the same recipe that led to the sponsorship scandal.

Why does the Prime Minister not want the people to know what he will do with the $3 billion?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, these funds will be used to implement the 2009 budget. Canadians are waiting for this budget and these monies. The New Democratic Party decided to vote against the budget before reading it. That is an irresponsible position.

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

Mr. Speaker, accountability is one of the cornerstones of democracy. Yet, here we see a prime minister who is circumventing Parliament. He is ignoring past auditor general reports. He is breaking all the lessons that were learned under the sponsorship scandal. Frankly, Canadians do not trust the Conservative government with a $3 billion slush fund. Reporting the mistakes after the fact just does not cut it.

Is the Prime Minister willing to table some accountability mechanisms right here in the House and put them in place to ensure that the hard-earned dollars of Canadian taxpayers do not become a Conservative slush fund?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is a member of Parliament who wanted to overturn the results of the election in order that Parliament would not get our budget. This is a member of Parliament who said he would vote against the budget no matter what was in it. Now, this is a member of Parliament who alleges there is a slush fund, when not a single dime of government money has actually been spent yet.

Mr. Speaker, this tells you how irresponsible and ridiculous the positions of the New Democratic Party have become. There used to be a day when that party actually stood for something. Now it is just against everything.

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

Mr. Speaker, spending taxpayers' money is not a matter of speed or accountability. Canadians want both. We had years of Liberal scandal and Canadians were expecting this Prime Minister to approach things a little bit differently. Instead, he is running what we can only call an accountability deficit.

What is he afraid of? Why not, for example, seek the Auditor General's advice first, or direct the President of the Treasury Board to get pre-approval from public accounts, or invite the public to track the money the way it is done in the U.S.? Speed is one thing. Canadians want accountability for their dollar.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure, they get neither from the NDP. The fact of the matter is that we have consulted the Auditor General. We will be fully accountable for this money. This money is necessary to make sure that we take full advantage of the upcoming construction season. I urge the NDP to stop its ridiculous opposition to programs that are clearly in the interests of not only all Canadians but even in the interests of those poor Canadians who voted NDP.

Afghanistan

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as recently as February, the Minister of National Defence said that Canada could not abandon its leadership role in Afghanistan until the country was capable of governing itself, free of the shadows of Taliban terror.

Does the minister still believe that?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I stand by that statement. Our government is taking a comprehensive, government-wide, all-department approach to improving national army and security forces capabilities in Afghanistan.

At the same time, we have to find a way to work with others to support certain Afghan government departments in reconstructing and rebuilding communities and strengthening governance. Ours is a comprehensive approach.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would not agree that it is hard for many Canadians to reconcile the kind of rhetoric, which the government has used for a long time, rhetoric that was contained in the minister's speech that I quoted in English where he said that Canada could not abandon its role until Afghanistan was free of the shadows of Taliban terror.

Does he not understand that it is very difficult for Canadians to reconcile that with the statement of the Prime Minister who is now prompting the minister? If the Prime Minister ever wants to answer a question from me I would be quite happy.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer.

It is quite ironic to have a member of Parliament who was demanding that Canada pull out of Afghanistan last year now wondering why we are pulling out three years from now.

The truth of the matter is this. Our soldiers, our diplomats and our development workers are doing a great job on the ground to ensure we can make this transition toward a mission more focused on development, where the Afghans handle their own responsibility.

That is what they are doing and the member should look at his own record on this issue before answering.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is totally false and the Prime Minister knows it. Let us try again.

In February 2008, the Minister of National Defence said:

This is why we cannot abandon the vital leadership role that we have been assuming in Afghanistan until we reach that critical tipping point....

Since the Prime Minister abdicated, what is our new critical tipping point now in Afghanistan?