Debates of March 18th, 2010

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the parliamentary secretary. There is one comment I want to make and one question I want to ask him.

With respect to health care, he talked about what the government did. What he is neglecting to say, and it is unfair, is that it provided nothing in any additional money. For the record, the money that is being transferred is the 2004-05 allocation of $56 billion by a Liberal government over a 10-year plan. He can even read the paper today. It confirms it.

He said that the government wants to keep more money in the hands of Canadians. I agree with him. We can do it by reducing taxes. I want to ask him a question about page 52. His Minister of Finance and Prime Minister said that taxing on jobs is a killer. We agree. That is why we were reducing EI benefits over so many years.

I will ask him to read page 52 of the budget. It shows that between 2000 and 2006, when the Liberals were in government, EI premiums were going down and then it kind of froze. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the government is going to be raising EI premiums to the tune of $13 billion. That is taking money out of people's pockets. How can he justify that?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I happen to agree with the member opposite when he stated that his government actually reduced EI benefits during its time in government. That is exactly what he said and he is right. For the record, I think it would be important for him to read his comments in Hansard after, because it certainly points out that his government did nothing for those who needed assistance during the recession while his party held government.

However, let me state very clearly for the record that it was his government and finance minister that decided that the best way to balance the budget and find savings was not to work hard here in Ottawa. It was simply to cut health transfers to the provinces and territories, of which they are finally starting to recover in this country.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues I have with the member's speech. He said that Canada has a strong banking system. It is largely recognized that that is the case. That is what has probably saved us from the mess that we see in the United States right now.

However, we should know here that the government had absolutely nothing to do with that. As a matter of fact, if it had had its way, it would have been deregulating the banking system in the race to the bottom following George Bush. It was the previous government and the oppositions at the time that forced the previous government to not allow a consolidation of the banks or regulations. The government is simply benefiting by something that was actually kept in place by the previous government.

Let us deal with the issue of corporate tax reductions. The Conservatives once again think that they can race to the bottom on corporate tax reductions and that we are somehow going to have a better economy because of it. The evidence is just not there. Statistics Canada said that business spending on machinery and equipment has actually declined.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can barely rise to respond to that question because I am blown away that a member from the fourth party in the House, the NDP, is actually defending our banking system. He is defending the banking industry.

It is good to see this morning, because every time members of that party stand up, they are trying to strip down a system so that it does not have the ability to do what it did during this time of recession. In fact, it helped this country and led this country to ensure that we are not in the position of one of our North American partners and certainly other partners around the world.

We are talking about the reduction of corporate taxes. We are thinking and moving toward ensuring that corporations have a competitive advantage to do business in this country and to ensure that when companies from outside of this country want to invest, they are going to look to Canada because they know we are competitive, aggressive, and a good place to do business.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sherbrooke.

Today I am going to talk about a subject that is perhaps not immeasurably important, but that is still very important, since it concerns the government’s intention, as expressed in the Speech from the Throne, to abolish the firearms registry, at least for long guns.

This intention on the part of the government has mobilized a lot of people in my constituency. I have met with several crime prevention organizations, since this is one prevention tool that fits perfectly with Quebec’s philosophy on crime. The Conservative philosophy revolves exclusively around enforcement and punishment.

I have also met with women’s organizations. This is a question of very particular concern to them, because unfortunately, most victims of spousal violence are women.

I have met with the mayors and police chiefs in my riding. Everyone agreed that something had to be done to block the government’s intention of abolishing a tool that is widely used by police.

Then I went out to see the people in my riding. I spent time at a lot of metro stations. My urban constituency has eight metro stations, and you can meet a lot of people there. A petition was circulated that I have tabled in the House; 1,500 names were collected in a few days.

That figure has to be put in perspective: those names were collected in my riding alone, in a few days. That is huge; there was enormous enthusiasm. It was unbelievable; people were lining up in the metro stations to sign the petition. They clearly care about the firearms registry. This is a visceral issue in Quebec, because it came out of the terrible tragedy at the École Polytechnique.

I tabled the petition in the House on March 8, International Women’s Day. This is very much a question that concerns and affects women in particular. The firearms registry has been particularly useful in relation to spousal tragedies and murders committed with long guns, a factor that the Conservative government wants to dissociate itself from.

The other reason why women in Quebec, and feminist Quebeckers, are greatly concerned about preserving the firearms registry is of course the event that led to the registry: the terrible tragedy at the École Polytechnique de Montréal. That tragedy was the height of misogyny and cowardice; an individual who held women responsible for all his misfortunes and probably for his own mediocrity took the cowardly step of murdering 14 young women with a firearm.

Those women, in the flower of their youth, were murdered with a weapon that the Conservatives want to remove from the firearms registry: a Ruger Mini-14. This is adding insult to injury for all the women who made this the fight of their lives and who decided to take this tragic event and create something out of it.

The firearms registry is the legacy of the victims, the survivors and the families of the victims, who did battle to ensure that Canada, like most countries in the world, would have a firearms registry. We have to be honest when we come to this debate, and talk about the real numbers.

I am often surprised to see the adversaries—and the Conservatives in particular—send the debate right off the rails. It is sort of like a pirate hijacking a vessel. The Conservatives are acting like pirates by taking the debate hostage and saying any old thing and its opposite.

I offer as evidence the response we often hear from the Conservatives. They say that, in any case, most crimes, murders and homicides are not committed with long guns, but with handguns.

From a statistics standpoint, they are not entirely wrong. In 2007, 67% of homicides were committed with handguns as opposed to 17% with shotguns or hunting rifles. What they failed to say, however, was that in 1997, in the early days of the gun registry, the proportion was significantly different. Handguns were involved in 50% of murders, while shotguns or hunting rifles were involved in 39.9%—over twice as many.

Where the gun registry was most useful and had the greatest impact was in the case of shotguns and hunting rifles The figures show that it was with these weapons that the registry had the greatest impact. It had less impact in the case of handguns.

The government is proposing to eliminate the most useful and effective part of the registry, the one that has had the greatest effect in statistical terms.

They are constantly giving out false information and fear-mongering. This is like Halloween, but without the pumpkin. There is nothing funny about this. They are frightening hunters by telling them that they will be treated like criminals if they are caught in the woods without a registration certificate, will have a criminal record and will no longer be able to travel. That is totally ridiculous.

This is not at all the case. An individual carrying an unregistered weapon will have it confiscated and have a few days to get it back it by submitting a registration certificate. It is a little embarrassing, but there have to be consequences when people fail to respect the law. In any case, it is far less serious than when people forget their vehicle registration, which leads to a hefty fine.

We must cut the Conservatives off at the pass. They will not change their mind, because they are short-sighted on this matter. Two men can block their path and we must convince them to do so. They are the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the NDP.

And when I say Leader of the Opposition, I mean the leader of the Liberal Party. The Bloc Québécois voted unanimously against this bill. Last week, my colleague from Ahuntsic asked the leader of the NDP a question. He tried to shake off the question like one would try to shake a dog off one's leg. That impresses no one. I am not comparing my colleague to a dog, of course. I am using that analogy to explain what the NDP and the Liberals think of this issue. I am sure that my colleagues understand.

These two leaders have to stop with their doublespeak, have the courage of their convictions and take measures to stop the Conservatives in their tracks.

I will finish by speaking about the importance of the gun registry. During my 10-minute speech, the registry was consulted by police nearly 70 times. They did not consult the registry because they had nothing better to do. They took the time to consult it nearly 70 times since my speech began because it is useful to them.

As parliamentarians, we have to trust the police, respect the memory of the victims at the École Polytechnique and all of those who have been abused since then, and establish a gun registry. We have to show political courage and vote against the government bill and the Speech from the Throne, which would get rid of the gun registry.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my learned colleague on his speech.

I want to focus on the budget's transfer of corporate taxation on the backs of the citizens of this country. The government will be implementing the HST in British Columbia and Ontario which will add billions of dollars to the tax obligations of our citizens. We also see the reduction of corporate taxes in the country staying essentially flat over the next five years, while personal income tax will go from approximately $100 billion to $150 billion over the next five years.

I am wondering what the member's comments would be on the wisdom of a tax policy that puts more taxes on the backs of ordinary working Canadians and takes it off of corporations leaving Canada with the lowest corporate income taxes of any of the G8 or G20 countries, far lower than it needs to be to be competitive in the real world.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I answer the question, I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier.

I said the firearms issue irritates the NDP as much as a dog you want to shake off your leg. Here is another example: although I was just talking about that issue, the NDP preferred to ask me a question about another topic altogether. While the subject of his question is certainly relevant, I would have liked to have heard his reaction to my speech.

As a responsible opposition party, the Bloc Québécois consulted Quebeckers and submitted a plan to the minister that included their demands, their solutions and their suggestions regarding the budget. The Bloc is the only opposition party that did so. We did the math. The plan was drawn up by our colleague from Hochelaga. I would like to point out what an excellent job he did on that plan, which is entirely credible and addresses the issue of tax shelters, taxation—

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to the member's speech for 10 minutes and I did not hear any content having to deal with the throne speech itself.

The member from British Columbia asked a question and he was asking for an answer on corporate taxes and the member refused--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member for his point of order but I believe that it is a matter of debate.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, you are quite correct, because in the throne speech--

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question I just asked the member dealt with the Speech from the Throne, which is the matter under debate. The Speech from the Throne dealt with taxation policy.

My hon. colleague stood up and impugned my reputation in the House by stating that my question had nothing to do with the topic under discussion and then he proceeded to talk about the gun registry, which has nothing to do with the Speech from the Throne. I would ask--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I want to state for all hon. members in the House that the Speech from the Throne is very generous in allowing speeches on the subjects that are important to members of Parliament. Of course, whether a member of Parliament answers a specific question is a matter of opinion. No one is obliged to answer every question put to him or her.

Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or has the matter been resolved?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I would like to point out, as I was saying at the beginning of my speech, that the Speech from the Throne specifically talks about abolishing the gun registry. That is what I was talking about.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, you are quite right. In the throne speech the government talks about abolishing the gun registry, so the member was right to speak to it.

The member talked about consultations, the police and so on. I have one question and one clarification when he pointed out that the Liberal Party was supporting it. He is inaccurate. We are not supporting the legislation to abolish the gun registry.

Our side stands and says that the police support it and the government stands and say that the police do not support it. Could the member clarify why the police associations do not come out with a clear statement stating that this is their position with no ambiguity in their response once and for all so Canadians know exactly where these associations stand?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by making a clarification. I did not say that the Liberal Party was against the gun registry. I said that the leader should show some courage and impose the party line on his caucus in order to block the Conservatives. Otherwise, it is far too easy to say, in ridings where it is popular, that the leader is for the gun registry, and then meet with groups in other ridings where it is less popular and say that as an individual member, he or she voted against it. This doublespeak is too easy and that is what I took issue with.

Now, I believe there is clear unanimity. The vast majority of police forces and associations of police chiefs have been clear on this. Obviously, there will always be some constable somewhere who disagrees or finds the whole thing useless.

The National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously adopted a motion on the issue three times. These are people from all parties, from the extreme left to the extreme right and straight through the centre. There is a very strong consensus. I have met with them.

The best proof or the best testimony from the police is that they consult the registry 10,000 times a day, or six or seven times a minute. If the registry did not help with their work, they would not consult it. They would not waste their time with it. That is the best testimony.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber for splitting his time with me. He is very generous.

The reason some members have risen on points of order today is that there is a fundamental problem. We seem to be discussing the menu after we have eaten the meal. We are discussing the Speech from the Throne today, but the budget has already been passed, in collaboration with the Liberal members who were careful not to vote.

I can never say it often enough: when it comes to a throne speech or a budget, the Bloc Québécois does its homework. Once again, it has done it. The Bloc held consultations to clearly identify the needs and aspirations of Quebeckers.

In both the throne speech and the budget, there are two groups that have been seriously overlooked: the overlooked poor and the overlooked rich. Some of the overlooked have specific needs, whether in terms of social housing or employment insurance—the people who are not entitled to it and the people whose benefits could be improved or who could have greater access to them. The overlooked also include older workers who have specific needs and seniors whose guaranteed income supplement puts them at or below the poverty line. A host of needs have not been met.

At the same time, some of the overlooked are wealthier. The government has overlooked the oil companies, which enjoy enormous exemptions and which should be making a greater social contribution. It has also overlooked the beneficiaries of tax havens. Billions of dollars are being allowed to go somewhere other than the economies of Canada and Quebec. Workers have also been overlooked, because they are not being taxed fairly.

Today, I hope to have time to address a few very specific issues. I would like to discuss the Canadian apparel and textile industries program, funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the community access program, broadband access technologies and telecommunications.

Let us start by talking about the Canadian apparel and textile industries program, formerly called CANtex. A company in my constituency has had an opportunity to become better known, as we can read in Les Affaires for the week of March 13 to 19. In spite of the situation that has prevailed in the apparel and textile industry for years, FilSpec has succeeded.

When I first came to the House, we were well aware that industry was having major and fundamental problems that had to be addressed. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives were up to the job. We will recall that in the case of apparel and textiles, there was talk at the time of loan guarantees. There was talk, just as there had been talk about research and development and investing more money in CANtex. Fortunately, at least a little money was invested. When I say “a little”, that is putting it mildly.

An analysis of the budget and the 2009-10 estimates spending reveals that the government's contribution under the Canadian apparel and textile industries program was $4.513 million. Members will say that that is not much and indeed it is very little. At the time, we called for an increase in the amount, but the government did not do its job. We are now faced with the events in the apparel and textile industry. Endless job losses have hit ridings such as mine and that of my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

The government would do extremely well to provide sufficient funding again.

I will speak briefly about the comments in the journal Les Affaires between March 13 and 19, 2010, which I mentioned earlier. It stated that competition from emerging countries in the textiles sector was threatening the survival of FilSpec. The result is that this firm specialized in the production of high-tech yarns for very specific applications. The survival of these so-called soft industries depends on innovation and thus on research and development to establish a very specific niche. Even though they may not have huge production, they have a niche with an international clientele.

Unfortunately, at certain times, the Canadian dollar increased hugely, creating export problems. Programs such as CANtex helped businesses export as well.

To demonstrate the capabilities of the firm, the author asked whether they could one day create a material that, like Harry Potter's magic cape, would make its wearer invisible. The president, Ronald Audet, did not say no. Moreover, his firm has almost met this challenge, because, for the Canadian army, the plant developed a yarn that goes into the manufacture of clothing that cannot be detected by infrared light. There are also antimicrobial yarns for the health sector and flame retardant yarns for firefighters. The plant is located in Sherbrooke and specializes in high-tech yarns.

I will end my reference to the journal, but I wanted to point out the importance of innovation. The government says that research and development is everything and that the future belongs to innovation, but it does not put its money where its mouth is.

Nothing is created, nothing is lost. It is a simple equation. World exports equal world imports. That is an absolute. So eventually, when there is a level playing field, the only thing that will set economies apart is not the exploitation of badly paid workers abroad or the exploitation of the environment or the social fabric of other countries, but innovation.

The government invests in certain sectors, but it invests more or less in other vital sectors. The manufacturing industry is a source of jobs that must not be abandoned, because the best hope of creating jobs is in high-tech and innovative manufacturers.

I recall that not so long ago—in 2009—my colleague from Shefford asked a question regarding CANtex in the House. He said it was important to continue the program to enable the textile industry to become more competitive and develop its markets. Unfortunately, the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) responded rather vaguely, providing absolutely no reassurance for the members of the industry that includes FilSpec.

In terms of innovation, the government is trying to eliminate the paper burden as much as possible. So it is asking the public to use the Internet. Unfortunately, to all intents and purposes, no mention is made of the community access program. It will therefore likely be eliminated. Yet we need it. Even the government, in its aim to reduce the paper burden, should keep it because all departments are asking us to work with the Internet and download forms from it.

More money must also go into making access to broadband even more—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to make a brief comment about the Speech from the Throne. I see that my Bloc Québécois colleague is trying to give Canadians the impression that certain things are important from a Bloc perspective.

I have a question for him and his party. Do they believe that the government across the floor really understands the aspirations and needs of all Canadians, no matter where they live?

Would they not agree that, because of the incompetence shown by this government so far, it has not presented a throne speech that fulfills anyone's aspirations, as any government should at the beginning of a new session?

Do they agree with the Liberal Party's position that we still need to look at much of what was said in the speech?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder about what my colleague just said. We could ask him the same question: does the Liberal Party agree with the throne speech or not and will it vote or not?

Every Bloc member voted against the budget and will vote against the Speech from the Throne. All of the Conservative government's aspirations do not come close to fulfilling Quebec's aspirations, including the most important one, of course. Yet during the election campaign in 2005, the Conservatives said they would be open to Quebec and would respect its jurisdictions and its status as a nation. They never did, and that is what we want them to do.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to draw the member's attention to page 8 of the throne speech, which talks about the formation of a national securities regulator. I know that certainly the province of Quebec and the province of Alberta, and certainly in the past the province of Manitoba and others, were basically opposed to this because it did in fact interfere with provincial jurisdiction.

Having said that, if this national securities regulator is to be formed and if it is run the same way that all the old securities regulators were formed, which is primarily being toothless, then how is that going to be plus?

My argument is that it is not the structure here that matters, it is who is running it, how aggressive it is, and what sort of rules it follows and regulations.

We can set up all the--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Sherbrooke has the floor for a very brief response.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right when he says that it is not the structure that matters, but how that structure is managed. We have a concrete example before us: the federal government does not function as it should.

I do not believe it is the fault of the structure, but that it is the government's will that is lacking. There are always those who would go against the aspirations of others.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question. I note that the member spent some time talking about his concerns about the manufacturing industry in Quebec. However, I also note that just in January, while manufacturing sales were up 2.4% across Canada, in Quebec they were actually up even more than that, 3.2%. That actually represents the fifth month of gains for manufacturing sales in Quebec. So, it would appear to me that the province of Quebec is doing extremely well, in terms of recovery, particularly in that sector of the Quebec economy we know to be so important.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Sherbrooke has about 30 seconds to respond.