House of Commons Hansard #108 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
John Baird ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, that is all speculation on the part of the Liberal Party. If the member for Bourassa has any real information, he should place it before the House after question period.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance try to hide behind the government House leader too? He usually manages to speak for himself. I would like him to answer the questions.
When did he sign off on rejecting the project? Who in his office knew about the decision? Most importantly, did he get information from his department about this matter? Did his office provide information about this matter to the RCMP and the Privy Council Office? This is not complicated.
John Baird ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, if the member has specific information to back up this speculation, I would encourage him to place it before the House after question period. If he has specific accusations, he should raise them in the House after question period.
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, about 100 Quebec artists came to Parliament Hill, calling for protection of their copyright. The Conservative government, as insensitive as ever to Quebec's concerns, rejected their basic demands with respect to digital levies.
A Conservative organizer in northern Montreal, the former riding president in Montcalm, even wrote on his Facebook page, and I quote, “I am sick of artists...take your demands and shove them.” That is the end of the Conservative quote.
Is that not the very essence of the Conservative government's position?
James Moore ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, our government's policy on this issue is in Bill C-32. We are also in talks with the Government of Quebec. In fact, I had a meeting with Ms. St-Pierre this week. Yesterday, I spoke with the Union des artistes and I stressed to them that this bill addresses the interests of both consumers and artists.
This is what the Canadian Film and Television Production Association had to say: “We applaud this Conservative government's copyright reforms.”
This is a balanced, responsible bill that is in the best interests of all Canadians.
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, this bill is unbalanced and irresponsible. Yesterday the artists said so themselves.
Among this delegation of artists was Claude Robinson, who fought a 15-year battle to have the courts recognize his copyright. He is a real symbol for copyright in Quebec. His presence reminded us that Bill C-32 transforms all creators into thousands of Claude Robinsons who will be left on their own to fight for their intellectual property rights and for fair compensation.
Is it not time to make significant changes to Bill C-32 to establish a fair balance between distributors and creators?
James Moore ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we say that the balance exists already in Bill C-32. We balanced the rights and obligations of the government to protect those in the creative economy and also those of consumers.
We protect the rights of creators. We make piracy illegal in Canada. We also impose the international WIPO treaties. We also have limited fair dealing in this bill. We also protect the rights of creators to impose technological protection measures to protect what it is that they are creating.
We also stand up for consumers by having a notice and notice regime. We stand up for consumers by saying no to a massive new tax on iPods, cellphones, BlackBerrys and laptops.
We believe in balance and what is in the best interests of consumers and creators.
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, regarding the infrastructure program, the Government of Quebec, the National Assembly, the Union des municipalités du Québec and the Fédération québécoise des municipalités oppose piecemeal solutions. They are asking that the March 31, 2011, deadline be extended for all infrastructure projects because 353 projects are in danger. The municipalities could be stuck with an additional bill for over $200 million.
The minister keeps repeating that there will be an announcement soon. Will the government stop fueling the uncertainty and push back the March 31, 2011, deadline?
Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, of course we have been listening to all of the provinces.
About three weeks ago, we finally received the data from Quebec that gave us an analysis on a project-by-project basis of the status of all those projects in Quebec. That information is essential as we do the analysis of what we need to do to look after the needs of the proponents.
The Prime Minister has already said today that not only are we going to be fair and reasonable but we are going to be flexible. We hope to have an announcement very soon.
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, several municipalities in Quebec could lose all of their funding because it will be impossible to complete all work before the deadline. In my riding, that is the case in the municipality of Sainte-Élisabeth, which will not be able to complete a major paving project.
Will the government finally listen to the Quebec municipalities and push back the March 31, 2011, deadline, as called for by the municipality of Sainte-Élisabeth in particular?
Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember the history of this. When we approached Quebec and asked how it wanted to deal with this, it said to make the deadline December 31. That was the first thing, way earlier than our deadline. Then Quebec attached an engineer's certificate saying it could complete the project by December 31.
We have already said we will extend it to March 31. That is easily done because that is the federal program. More importantly, we have been working with Madame Courchesne and other ministers in the Quebec government in a respectful way. Understanding now the severity of the problem, we are working closely to find solutions so that we can be fair, reasonable and flexible.
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Finance is the biggest spender and has created the largest deficit in our history.
He is wasting millions of dollars on fake lakes and ministerial whims and billions of dollars on untendered fighter jets and he has the gall to say that the recession caused the deficit. He has the gall to want to make our seniors pay for the billions he has wasted.
Will the Minister of Finance finally admit that he has lost all control of this orgy of waste?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite, of course. The stimulus spending was necessary and it was supported by Parliament. It was necessary to protect our country. The member's party supported it.
It was necessary to run a deficit. Why was it necessary to run a deficit? It was to protect our country and to protect jobs. In fact, we gained back all of the jobs lost during the recession as a result of the economic action plan.
I do not know why the member would complain about it two years later.
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, we did not vote for untendered contracts for fighter jets. This minister is living on a cloud surrounded by untendered fighter jets.
Canadians' personal debt is hitting record highs. National debt is exploding. Jobs are still hard to come by. And the Minister of Finance is authorizing the purchase of fighter jets without a single job guarantee?
How dare this joke of a minister applaud himself for a job well done. Does the Minister of Finance really want to duplicate the disaster he created in Ontario on a national scale?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, once again, the program to purchase the new jet fighters was begun by the party of the member opposite.
However, let us listen to what the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada had to say, just a week ago, about the ability to compete for the production of 3,000 to 5,000 aircraft internationally:
This amount represents more than $12 Billion in opportunities on the partner's fleet....
It goes on to encourage all members of the House to support the nearly 150,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs that it would generate.
I do not know why the members opposite in the Liberal Party have changed their position on support for this great initiative.
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, a new report from Global Insight tells us that Canada is actually falling behind the already weak U.S. economy. More Canadians are out of work and are struggling with record levels of personal debt.
The same finance minister who lectures Canadian families about risky spending has allowed costs for Conservative ministerial staff to explode by seven times the rate of inflation.
Why is he ballooning Conservative office budgets while leaving Canadian families out in the cold?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite must be the only person in Canada who thinks the American economy is doing better than the Canadian economy.
Let us talk about employment and unemployment. The United States unemployment rate is about 9.6%. The Canadian rate is less than 8%. That has not happened in Canadian history since 1975. That is because we had a good stimulus plan, which was supported by the member's party at a time of economic crisis in this country and which has worked.
The member should applaud the plan and applaud Canada's economic performance.
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, unemployment in Canada is two points higher than when that finance minister took office.
The finance minister killed a Liberal bill to protect disabled pensioners. His latest move to cut low-income seniors benefits will put many seniors out on the streets.
We know that the minister is on the record in support of putting the homeless in jail. Is that why he is saying no to low-income seniors and disabled pensioners but yes to spending billions of their tax dollars on U.S.-style mega-prisons?
Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development
Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. No government has done more to help Canada's seniors, those who built our country, than this government.
Let us take a look at the Liberal record compared to ours.
We brought forward pension income splitting. They voted against it.
We brought forward increasing the age credit, not once but twice, to help seniors keep more money in their pockets. The Liberals voted against it.
We also brought forward an additional $10 million for the new horizons programs that help seniors stay active and contribute within their communities. What happened with the Liberals? They voted against it. Shame on them.
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Mr. Speaker, queue jumpers are paying human smugglers to abuse Canada's immigration system. Our country is being treated like a doormat. Canadians are sick and tired of illegal human smuggling boats coming to our shores. Yet the Liberals are siding with the immigration industry rather than ordinary Canadians by refusing to get tough on human smuggling.
I ask the minister, why are the Liberals so out of touch with ordinary Canadians on human smuggling?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, we all know that Canadians expect this Parliament to take tough and reasonable action to stop human smuggling syndicates from targeting this country and treating it like a doormat. That is why we brought forward Bill C-49, a strong but reasonable effort to stop the smuggling syndicates from targeting Canada.
The Liberals pretended they might be in favour of these measures prior to this week's byelections. However, as soon as those elections were behind them, they revealed their opposition to the crackdown on human smuggling and queue jumping. That is an irresponsible position.
We stand with the Canadian people and against the smugglers trying to—
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff is advocating targeted assassination of a civilian, in reaction to the leak of U.S. documents.
These comments are quickly becoming an international embarrassment.
Mr. Flanagan is known as the ideological mentor of the Prime Minister. He concocted many key Conservative policies and is a talking head of the Conservatives.
Will the government unequivocally condemn Mr. Flanagan and his reckless comments?
John Baird ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Flanagan speaks only for himself. He does not speak for the government. He is not an adviser to the Prime Minister and has not been for many years. I certainly do not share his views.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been refusing to acknowledge the facts on child detainees. Despite the claim of changes in 2007, it is clear that the government only stopped handing children over to the NDS in Afghanistan in March 2010. We know it is not just those who kill or attack Canadians who are detained in Afghanistan.
When will the government tell the truth? When will the minister tell the House and all Canadians how many children were handed over to the NDS and what happened to them? When will the minister give us the straight answers Canadians deserve on child detainees?
