Debates of March 17th, 2010

The Budget

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Isabelle Thiffault, from McGill University, received two post-doctoral scholarships. Her research could open the door to new treatments for neurological problems.

Because of the 2010 budget, which limits eligibility for education tax credits, Isabelle will see her taxes increase by $4,000.

Will the Minister of Finance explain to Isabelle why he increased her taxes by $4,000?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is ignoring the facts. We have done a lot for students: there are many more scholarships and funding opportunities available.

We have invested in universities and colleges to help them accept students. We have also modified the repayment system to make it easier for students to study.

Tax Harmonization

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

Mr. Speaker, when asked about tax harmonization yesterday, the Prime Minister said, “We will continue to work to reach an agreement similar to those reached with other provinces”. But the agreement reached between the federal government and provinces such as Ontario and British Colombia clearly states that the federal government collects the GST, not the provinces.

Can the Prime Minister tell us if he agrees with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who, in April 2009, said that an agreement with Quebec about the GST would mean that the federal government would manage this tax?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday. The Parliament of Canada passed legislation on harmonizing the GST with provincial sales taxes. It is a provincial decision. We have signed agreements in this regard, agreements that create mutual obligations between the federal and provincial governments. We want agreements that respect our obligations towards the other provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister to give us a clear answer. One of the two governments will have to manage this money. Under the 1992 agreement, Quebec manages it. In all of the other agreements between the federal government and other provinces, Ottawa manages it.

I simply want an answer. Is this why negotiations have stalled? Is the current government questioning the 1992 agreement? Is it saying that if Quebec wants to receive that $2.2 million, then Ottawa must be allowed to manage the money?

Will Quebec be allowed to continue managing this money, yes or no? The question could not be any clearer.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec signed a completely different agreement. We have respected that agreement. It was not an agreement about harmonizing the provincial tax with the GST. This agreement states that Quebec will collect the GST on behalf of the federal government. We are respecting this agreement.

If Quebec would like another type of agreement, we are open to that. We are currently negotiating in good faith with the province.

Environment Canada

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government wants to control scientists by imposing its right-wing ideological agenda on them. Not content with muzzling them, now the government would like them to consider whether their publications are in line with government policies and priorities. It is outrageous. The minister refuses to see that this approach is a deliberate attempt at censorship.

When scientists are prohibited from answering journalists directly, are required to provide their answers in advance and are subject to partisan publication standards, if that is not censorship, then I wonder what is.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that his allegations are false. He also knows that Environment Canada has the same media relations policy as every other department across the government.

Climate change science is valuable and important work that this government supports. We will continue to support good science.

Science and Technology

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since it wants to control everything and impose a regressive program, when can we expect the government to give the Minister of State for Science and Technology the green light to provide scientists with a little creationism for dummies guide that could be called “Dinosaurs in power”?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we support good science and science research.

The member may not be aware, but Canada is part of the Copenhagen accord. We have worked with our international partners and with our provinces. We have moved on now with a new global agreement. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment, we are making Canada proud. We are acting. Why will that member not support good environmental legislation?

Prorogation of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated against the Prime Minister's prorogation of their House of Commons.

Today we are debating an NDP motion to put limits on the power to prorogue.

Considering the wave of discontent over his unilateral decision, is the Prime Minister prepared to support our proposal to limit prorogation to seven days unless a vote in the House of Commons decides otherwise?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, to change executive powers in the Canadian Constitution, a constitutional amendment is required. However, if the leader of the Bloc—excuse me, I meant to say the leader of the New Democratic Party, but sometimes it amounts to the same thing—wants to form his coalition with the Bloc and the Liberal Party instead of changing the Constitution, he should seek a mandate from the people of Canada.

International Cooperation

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

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the Conservatives want to exclude contraception from their plan to improve maternal health throughout the world because they believe that contraception does not save lives. That is unbelievable.

Can the Prime Minister explain why this very important aspect of prevention is excluded from this otherwise commendable initiative to improve maternal health in less fortunate countries?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear since our great announcement, accepted by all countries in the G8. This initiative is about saving the lives of mothers and children. As we know, 500,000 women die in pregnancy and childbirth every year and an estimated 75% of maternal deaths occur within 48 hours after delivery. This hard fact is something we can do something about, and that is what we intend to do, at the G8, along with our colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, more than half a million women and girls die from pregnancy-related causes every year, and more than 15 million to 20 million have maternal morbidity. And the foreign affairs minister is going around saying that contraception does not save lives. How can a program aimed at reducing maternal mortality not allow for any contraception as a part of the program?

I ask the Prime Minister, is Canada's signature initiative at the G8 going to be the no condoms for Africa strategy?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, 75% of mothers are dying within 48 hours after delivery. In fact, 17% of those maternal deaths happen during childbirth and 71% happen in the postpartum period. Out of the 75%, 45% of those deaths happen within 24 hours of giving birth.

Far too many lives are being sacrificed when we can do something about it. This is the time we should act.

Afghanistan

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative ministers falsely maintained, on a number of occasions, that they were not interested in building prisons in Afghanistan. We have just learned that, in February 2009, they were privately telling Afghan representatives the exact opposite.

Why did the government say one thing to Canadians and quite another, in private, to the Afghan authorities?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the proposal to build a Kabul-based NDS detention centre in 2007 was a U.K.-led initiative, which ultimately did not come to pass. Under the new transfer agreement, the Government of Afghanistan has agreed to hold detainees in a limited number of Afghan facilities: first, in the NDS facility, as well as in the Sarposa prison, which is run by the Afghan minister of justice.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, since no prisons were built, the Conservatives agreed to give Afghan authorities a heads-up before inspecting their prisons. Recently, the U.S. State Department reported that torture was commonplace in these same prisons.

Why does the government give advance notice to those responsible for Afghan prisons, thus giving them time to hide evidence of torture?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, had my honourable colleague made just the slightest effort to read the agreement, he would have quickly discovered that we do not give advance notice. That is exactly what was negotiated. More than 210 inspections have been carried out without advance notice. One took place recently, just 10 days ago. Not only did we negotiate that agreement, but we have also enhanced it.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has come to light that the government made a secret deal with the British and Dutch officials to build a new Afghan prison. Despite its written promise over a year ago to Afghan officials, there is nothing to show. The government must have known about the risk of torture when it agreed with our NATO allies to build a new prison.

Instead of addressing our international obligations, our government is now apologizing for this empty promise. What exactly did the government know and why is this letter surfacing now, if the government has nothing to hide?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, we have never been briefed on that. I can confirm that the 2007 transfer agreement is in full force and in effect. As I reminded his colleague, the 2007 agreement that this government negotiated grants us full and unrestricted access to detention facilities where detainees are transferred by Canadian Forces. To date, there have been over 210 visits made by Canadian officials to these facilities.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions in public and in the House, the Conservative ministers have repeatedly said that Canada has no interest in building prisons in Afghanistan. Yet this letter from the general director of the NDS proves otherwise. The government must have known that torture is a serious issue in Afghan prisons.

The government was telling Canadians one thing while telling Afghan officials the complete opposite. Canadians do not know what to believe from a government that keeps hiding the truth and gets caught hiding the truth. Why does it not stop the charade and call a public inquiry?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the colleague here and my colleagues in the House that Canada is not in the business of building or running Afghan prisons. Let us be clear on that. We are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan government build its independent capacity to manage its own affairs.

One of Canada's six priorities is helping the Afghan government promote law and order, which includes its corrections systems. Canada has mentored Afghan prison staff and invested $5.5 million to improve that infrastructure.

Rights & Democracy

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has signed international treaties meant to protect child soldiers. But the Conservative government is disregarding those treaties by claiming that Omar Khadr is not a child soldier. Yet the Minister of Foreign Affairs maintains that Rights & Democracy “—has to respect the obligations under the international treaties to which the Government of Canada has adhered” and the resulting policies.

What should Rights & Democracy do in Omar Khadr's case? Condemn the government's failure to respect international commitments or defend its twisted interpretation?