House of Commons Hansard #113 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rail.
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, although the Conservatives have difficulty admitting that climate change even exists, there is little doubt that tides are higher and stronger because of climate change.
Will the government admit that the disastrous conditions being experienced in the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspé and North Shore regions constitute additional evidence that we must begin reducing our greenhouse gas emissions right away?
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. How do we reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally? Do we go with the coalition plan of addressing 27% or 85%?
This government is supporting an 85% reduction, covered by 85% of the emissions. One hundred and ninety countries have signed onto the Copenhagen accord. We are down in Cancun right now getting it done for the environment.
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, it was an excellent question but, unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the answer.
We must work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but, in the meantime, we must also be preparing to adapt to the effects of climate change. The creation of a compensation fund seems more necessary than ever. This fund would be used, for example, to pay for measures to slow the shoreline erosion caused by high tides.
Will the government create an adjustment fund to compensate for the effects of climate change?
Mark Warawa ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, in Cancun Canada will seek to build upon the successes of the Copenhagen accord, the only accord that includes, as the Prime Minister said, all the major emitters. Canada will work with the nations focusing on the five pillars of the accord: financing, mitigation, adaptation, technology, measuring and reporting.
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, while the federal government continues to justify the police's use of excessive force during the G20 summit held in Toronto, the Ontario ombudsman has concluded that it constituted an abuse of power similar to the war measures. We know that the RCMP played a key role in planning and coordinating security for the summit.
In light of such a serious statement by the ombudsman, does the Minister of Public Safety plan on launching a public inquiry to expose the abusive arrests made at the G20?
Vic Toews ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, specific bodies exist to handle complaints regarding police conduct. It is appropriate for individuals, including the member, to direct her concerns to those bodies.
Our Conservative government has been up front about the real need and cost of security from the beginning. We are, in fact, very proud of the work that the police have done in the G8 and G20. If there are any specific concerns about specific officers, there are specific bodies that could deal with that.
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that the RCMP is part of his department.
The RCMP played a key role in coordinating this summit. It is partly responsible for the arbitrary and abusive arrests. More than 1,000 people were arrested, including hundreds who were arrested without the necessary warrants.
Since the Ontario ombudsman himself recognizes that his mandate is very limited, will the government finally launch a public inquiry to shed light on this mistake?
Vic Toews ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I think it is reprehensible that the member would slander the reputation of each and every police officer who provided security at the G8 and G20.
Our front line police officers did an excellent job in protecting the safety of Canadians, delegates, and visitors to the city of Toronto. If there are specific officers who did something wrong, there are specific bodies that can handle those complaints. I would direct the member to those bodies.
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Auditor General said that the Department of National Defence's helicopter acquisition process was not fair, open and transparent.
Bureaucrats admitted that there had been mistakes, which were very costly for the public, but that lessons had been learned.
Meanwhile, senior defence officials passed the buck to the minister.
Given that this squares firmly with the agenda of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, my question is for the committee chair.
Does the committee plan to call the minister to testify and explain this fiasco?
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will propose this to the committee. The member is absolutely right.
He emphasized the Auditor General's scathing report on two counts. First, that the contract process was neither fair nor open nor transparent; and second, that the government's mismanagement of the process has cost taxpayers billions of dollars so far with no helicopters.
The minister, if he is truly accountable and willing to be responsible, can quickly volunteer to come before the committee and explain himself. I am sure the committee will accommodate him.
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, when I asked whether the rules for awarding the Chinook contract were followed, the Deputy Minister of National Defence told me that they were not followed to the letter but that they were not that serious anyway. Then he said that he did not understand what all the fuss was about because, and I quote, “nothing bad happened”. Each Canadian will pay $400 in taxes for this violation of the rules, and we have yet to see a helicopter here in the country.
Does the minister agree with the deputy minister, and will he come and defend this opinion before the committee?
Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, let me rewind the clock here. In 1993, the Prime Minister stood up and said, “Zero helicopters”.
Seventeen years later and about $1 billion later, we are still waiting for the first airplane. That program has been problematic because of what the Liberals did to the program. It has taken us this long to resurrect it.
We are finally going to equip the back end of our ships with a modern, updated helicopter that is going to meet the needs of the Canadian Forces, that is going to meet the needs of Canadian industry, and is going to correct the errors that those folks on that side made 17 years ago.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard two more companies say that they meet Canada's requirements for the replacement of the CF-18s.
That is a total now of four companies. One company told us that the final assembly line would be in Canada, a huge industrial benefit to Canada. Another told us the total cost would be $6 billion. That is about one-third of the cost of the F-35s.
Why does the government still refuse to have an open, transparent and Canadian competition to get the right plane for our air force and the right value for Canadian taxpayers?
Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, what would the member expect those companies to say?
The F-35 investment is a win-win for Canadian Forces and the Canadian economy. The Canadian Forces are replacing an aircraft that is at the end of its lifetime. The Canadian aerospace industry will benefit from opportunities with tens of thousands of highly skilled well-paying jobs for decades to come.
Why do the Liberals want to take the force out of the air force, and let the air out of the aerospace industry?
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, when Norway was choosing a plane to replace their F-16s, leaked state department memos indicated the process was skewered and the failure of Lockheed Martin to guarantee industrial benefits was a big problem.
We have a similar situation in Canada. The Conservatives developed secret criteria for a plane that they have already chosen. They refuse to hold an open, Canadian competition, and abandon guaranteed industrial benefits.
Why are the Conservatives so afraid to get the right plane for the right value for Canadian taxpayers?
Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, in 10 countries, highly paid, highly qualified experts, civilian and military, have looked at this situation and have all come up with the same answer, and that is the F-35.
Let me tell the House what some people are afraid of. They are afraid of going to Lockheed Martin. They are afraid of going to Fort Worth to look at the airplanes and to find out the truth. They scuttled a trip by the defence committee that was supposed to go there last week.
The Minister of National Defence is there today with the Minister of Industry, with representatives from 11 companies that do know the truth and understand the truth.
This is the best deal for the Canadian air force. It is the best deal for Canadian industry. It is the best deal for Canadian taxpayers. Get with the program.
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Mr. Speaker, Canadians can trust our Conservative government to make their streets and communities safer.
Yesterday, our Conservative government passed a piece of legislation that will strengthen the national DNA databank and the national sex offender registry.
There are currently 20 pieces of legislation before Parliament that, like this piece of legislation, get tough on crime.
Would the Minister of Public Safety please remind this House why we need to get these important pieces of legislation passed without further delay?
Vic Toews ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, yesterday our legislation to provide greater protection for children and all Canadians was passed in the House, but thanks to the Liberal-led coalition there remains much more to be done. Because of the opposition stalling, victims continue to wait for legislation that would eliminate pardons for dangerous offenders and end house arrest for serious crimes.
I would call on all opposition parties to finally put the victims first and support our efforts to make the streets safer.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, governing is about making choices. The Conservatives have chosen to reduce taxes for banks rather than help the hundreds of thousands of seniors who are living in poverty.
For this year alone, Canada's chartered banks racked up record profits of over $20 billion, $10 billion of which will be used for executive bonuses this year. The tax reductions given to the banks this year will exceed $840 million. That is more than enough to lift every Canadian senior above the poverty line.
Why are bonuses for bank executives a higher priority for the government than help for impoverished seniors?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the NDP voted against Bill C-47, which is a budget bill. That budget bill contains important protections for consumers, the highest level of protection that bank customers have ever had in the history of Canada.
However, here comes the NDP. Every time it gets an opportunity to help consumers, it votes against the interests of consumers in Canada.
Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON
Mr. Speaker, let us put the $20 billion bank profits in perspective. That is almost half of this year's deficit. While the Conservatives choose to give another $840 million in tax breaks, a pure windfall to the banks, seniors and others in poverty are vulnerable to predatory credit card companies, seniors like Nancy Chamberlain from B.C. Capital One gave this mentally-ill woman a credit card with full knowledge she would never repay it.
Why will the government not, finally, crack down on the predatory credit card practices of banks and protect seniors?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, we have done substantial credit card reforms. We have also brought in a code of conduct for credit card companies. Again, the NDP is against consumers. Every time we do something for consumers or want to do something in a bill before the House, it votes against it.
Here is what the Consumers Association of Canada said, “All of the things that [the Finance Minister] has done [re: credit cards]are actually just what we asked for...overall, 'I've got to congratulate [him]'”.
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, Quebec is not receiving its fair share of the gateways and border crossings fund. Only $10 million of the $1.6 billion allocated by Transport Canada was announced for Quebec. And yet, the needs are enormous. A few examples include the need to upgrade the coastal navigation infrastructure, the ports of Montreal and Quebec City and the border crossing infrastructure all along the American border.
How does the government explain the fact that Quebec received less than 1% of the gateways and border crossings fund?
Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true, but it is true that gateways are tremendously important. The Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative has been one of Canada's signature and most successful pieces. The Atlantic strategy is coming on stream very quickly and the continental corridor, which includes Quebec, will come on stream early next year.
It is important to remember that the single biggest thing we could do to help Quebec trade is to improve the direct crossing at the Windsor-Detroit border. Twenty-five per cent of all of Canada's cross-border trade goes across there. We should build that bridge. We urge Michigan to pass the legislation necessary to make that possible.
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, significant investments must be made so that the St. Lawrence Seaway remains a true gateway for goods from the Atlantic. The Port of Montreal alone is asking for $450 million to $650 million in federal funding, mainly to strengthen its strategic position in terms of cabotage and intermodal transportation.
When will the Conservative government finally understand the importance of the St. Lawrence Seaway and give Quebec its fair share of the gateways and border crossings fund?