House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jobs.
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' ideological speeches about law and order are not fooling anyone. By declaring this fifth amnesty for those who flout the obligation to register their firearms, the Conservative government is wilfully ignoring the law passed by this Parliament.
How can the government preach law and order when it is allowing people with guns to avoid obeying the law?
Dave MacKenzie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, we know that criminals do not register their guns and that illegal handguns are the primary problem.
We support the repeal of the long gun registry because it unfairly targets farmers and duck hunters, not criminals. It has been clear for some time that the long gun registry is wasteful, inefficient and does nothing to prevent crime.
Our previous extensions to the amnesty have increased the number of firearms owners coming into compliance with the control measures in place.
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, when it imposes overly dramatic measures on young offenders, against the consensus in Quebec, the Conservative government claims it is protecting our society. Yet, when it comes time to control firearms, the government extends the amnesties and encourages people to disobey the law. In fact, it is dismantling the firearms registry.
Does the government think that the protection of society will be better served by allowing more unregistered guns to circulate?
Dave MacKenzie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, obviously the member did not pay attention to what I said, which is that criminals do not register their guns and that illegal handguns are the primary problem.
Registration of firearms owners as well as prohibiting restricted weapons, such as handguns, will continue in effect. Our previous extensions to the amnesty have brought a number of Canadians into compliance with the control measures in the Act.
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are raising so many different taxes that they cannot even remember which ones will be raised.
I would like to remind them that they created a new tax on income trusts and that they are raising the income taxes of our brightest post-doctoral researchers, along with employment insurance premiums and taxes on airline tickets.
Which of these tax increases is the Prime Minister's favourite?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, we are delivering historical and permanent tax relief in Canada. Total savings for a typical family in Canada is now over $3,000 as a result of four years of Conservative government.
We have reduced the GST from 7% to 5%. On this side of the House, unlike the official opposition, we do not intend to raise the GST.
We are also continuing with our business tax cuts, where we will have most of the provinces at 10% by 2013 or so. The federal government is 15%, a combined tax rate for businesses in Canada, which is a great brand internationally of—
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, in the minister's own words, employment insurance premiums are “one of those job-killing taxes”. Yet the Conservatives are raising this job-killing tax to the tune of $1,200 for a two-earner family, not to mention new Conservative taxes on travel, research, savings and even toupees.
Why is he putting new Conservative taxes on everything that moves and why does he not tell Canadians the truth about these Conservative tax hikes?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the member for Markham—Unionville can tell the House his plan that it is certainly a mathematical possibility to raise taxes. That is the view of the Liberal opposition in this place.
In the United States and in the United Kingdom, where I was last week, I had the opportunity to listen to what financial experts and fiscally responsible people thought of Canada. Our brand is superb. We have it right with respect to financial regulation, the strength of our financial institutions and the fiscal responsibility of the government moving back to a balanced budget.
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Mr. Speaker, for the past year, we have seen millions upon millions of dollars wasted on government advertising, seen on everything from the Super Bowl to the Academy Awards. Now those evaluating the advertising program note that one of the primary goals of the campaign was to promote the Conservative government.
Will the Prime Minister stop this shameful waste of tax dollars and invest in things that Canadians care about, like jobs and pensions?
Government AdvertisingOral Questions
Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.
Conservative
Stockwell Day ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway
Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the government to inform the citizens on how to apply for and how to be eligible for any number of a wide range of government programs. For instance, it was the responsibility of government to let Canadians know about the H1N1 situation and how they could apply there. There are many tax advantages, some of which the Minister of Finance has just articulated.
In 2002 the Liberals spent $111 million on this type of advertising. In 2009 we spent $89 million.
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Mr. Speaker, a note that has been clearly self-serving. Every dollar the government wastes promoting itself is a dollar not spent on services to Canadians or to reduce the massive deficit Conservatives have created.
When the Ethics Commissioner was asked about the partisan nature of the government's advertising, the only defence submitted was from a lawyer from the Conservative Party. Clearly it puts it selfish interests first.
How can the Conservative government justify such outrageous spending on self-promotion when it is doing so little on jobs, on pensions, on child care?
Stockwell Day ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway
Mr. Speaker, on the job front, we know that in the last five of the last seven months we have seen the number of people working in Canada actually increase, not go down. I agree with what the Minister of Public Works minister said related to this program of advertising. The quote is “the public has a fundamental right to know what its government is doing and why”. Sorry, that was the former minister of public works, the member for Wascana.
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, Canada holds an enviable place in the global aerospace industry, ranking among the top five countries in the world and employing upward of 80,000 skilled professionals in over 400 firms across the country. We know it was this government that implemented the Canada first procurement strategy and strengthened the industrial regional benefits program.
Could the Minister of Industry please update the House on this government's commitment to our Canadian aerospace and defence industry?
Tony Clement ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that partners were announced from across Canada. We provided in-service support for the Hercules tactical airlift fleet, which is an IRB contribution of $617 million. That is not only good news for our Canadian Forces, it is good news for the aerospace and defence industry across the country. It means more jobs and more opportunity for Canadians.
Our strong IRB policy ensures that all regions benefit from major defence procurement. After the 10 lost years of the Liberal government, that decade of darkness, we are doing what we can for the Canadian Forces.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs committee is trying to get to the bottom of the crisis at Rights & Democracy. Our work has been stalled by the government through filibuster, but today there was yet another stalling tactic.
The interim president and the board chair set to appear tomorrow have cancelled and have said that they are not available until April. These witnesses are giving Parliament the same evasive treatment they gave Rémy Beauregard before his untimely death.
Will the government ensure parliamentary accountability? Will it bring its appointees into line or will we have to send if a message that we will have to subpoena these individuals? Subpoena them or are we going to have to—
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Deepak Obhrai ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we agree it is important that the committee study Rights & Democracy. All committee members originally agreed to four meetings on the subject, given that the committee also has to study other issues. Given the agreed upon schedule, committee members believe it is important to focus on witnesses that could help R & D move forward.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, it has now been over three months since the House ordered the release of documents related to the torture of Afghan detainees and the government has not complied. The Prime Minister's most recent attempt to avoid and delay accountability to Parliament is to appoint Mr. Iacobucci to advise the government, a process that ignores Parliament and could take up to two years.
How long will the Prime Minister continue to ignore a lawful order of Parliament? Will the Prime Minister stop abusing his power, stop hiding the truth and finally give members of Parliament access to these documents?
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is completely wrong. The government has asked Mr. Justice Frank Iacobucci to undertake an independent, comprehensive and proper review of all the documents. As I pointed out, these are the documents that go back to 2001, the beginning of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan.
Again, the hon. member should let Justice Iacobucci do his work.
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, we are facing a paradoxical situation, to say the least. The Conservatives have done everything they possibly could to keep the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade from shedding light on what has been happening at Rights & Democracy over the past few months. In a newspaper this morning, members of the board of directors, including the chair, welcomed the idea that the subject be taken up by the committee.
In this context, how can the government justify the fact that the Conservative members of the committee are refusing to hear from all relevant witnesses?
Deepak Obhrai ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we agree that it is important that the committee study Rights & Democracy.
All committee members originally agreed to four meetings on the subject, given that the committee also wants to study other issues. Given the agreed upon schedule, the committee members believe that it is important to focus on witnesses who could move Rights & Democracy forward.
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that systematically obstructing the committee is the way to achieve that.
This government is using one diversion tactic after another. It has used prorogation, systematic obstruction and the referral to Justice Iacobucci to stall for time in the Afghan detainee matter.
In order to respect the will of this House and protect the secrets that could jeopardize our soldiers, why does the government not—to begin with—hand over all the documents concerning Afghanistan to the parliamentary committee, which could study them in camera?
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the documents have been released to the committee.
Again, nobody wants to jeopardize public safety or national security and nobody wants to put at risk the men and women who are serving us in Afghanistan.
We have instituted a process with Justice Iacobucci. Again, I think the hon. member should have confidence in that, along with the members on this side of the House.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, last week, the environment minister misled the committee when he said that funding for the protection of the St. Lawrence was included in the budget for the Great Lakes. The minister said, “...the St. Lawrence as part of those expenditures, since it is the basin that drains the Great Lakes.
However, the St. Lawrence is not in fact funded under the Great Lakes program.
Would the minister like to take this opportunity to correct his error?