Debates of May 7th, 2010

Atlantic Shellfish Industry

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

Caffeinated Beverages

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first is signed by dozens of Canadians and represent a call against Health Canada's authorization of caffeine in all soft drinks.

Health Canada announced on March 19, 2010 that beverage companies will now be allowed to add up to 75% of the caffeine allowed in the most highly caffeinated colas to all soft drinks.

Soft drinks have been designed and marketed toward children for generations. Canadians already have concerns over children drinking coffee and colas as they acknowledge caffeine is an addictive stimulant.

It is difficult enough for parents to control the amount of sugar, artificial sweeteners, and other additives that their children consume including caffeine from colas.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reverse Health Canada's new rule allowing caffeine in all soft drinks and not to follow the deregulation policies of the United States and other countries at the sacrifice of the health of Canadian children and pregnant women.

Earthquake in Chile

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

Madam Speaker, the second petition is also signed by dozens of Canadians calling on the Canadian government to match funds personally donated by the citizens of Canada for the victims of the earthquake in Chile. On February 27, 2010 an 8.8 magnitude earthquake occurred in southern Chile.

The Canadian Chilean community has been mobilized and has held fundraising events in Winnipeg, several in fact. There is another one coming up, I believe, on May 22. It has raised considerable amounts of money for earthquake relief.

The question that everyone is asking, when will the Prime Minister give the same treatment to the earthquake victims in Chile as he did for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti and match funds personally donated by Canadians to help the victims of the earthquake in Chile?

Victims of Crime

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to table a petition brought to me by my constituent, Sharista Ishaak-Smith.

The petition calls upon the House of Commons to adopt legislation which will provide a provision in the Criminal Code of Canada allowing victims of sexual assault and other violent crimes to have a lifelong, no-contact order against their offenders after their release.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 165 and 169.

Question No. 165

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

With regard to the Labrador Coast Airstrips Restoration Program: (a) was there a hiatus between the commencement of the current program and the previous program announced on or about April 1, 2003, and, if so, (i) what was the duration of the hiatus between the expiry of the previous program and the current program, (ii) what was the reason for the hiatus; (b) what is the total monetary value and duration of the current program; and (c) do the monetary value and duration of the current program differ from the previous program and, if so, (i) in what particulars, (ii) what is the reason for any such differences?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to a) There was no hiatus.

With regard to b) Total monetary value of the current program is $ 4 million and the duration is four years, April 1, 2009--March 31, 2013.

With regard to c) Yes: (i) Term of the previous program was six years with a monetary value of $ 5 million. (ii) The previous program was originally five years however the minister extended it for one year, April 1, 2008 - March 31, 2009, to allow completion of a major airfield restoration project that had commenced but could not be completed during the last year of the original five-year term. The term of the program has historically been five years. In order to align the program term with the departmental program review cycle the current extension was set at four years. Program funding has historically averaged $1 million per year and the $ 4 million over four years for the current program is consistent with historical funding.

Question No. 169

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

With regard to the government's aid to Chile, following the earthquake and tsunami of February 27, 2010: (a) what are the government's current commitments in aid for the victims and rebuilding efforts in Chile; and (b) what other efforts are being considered?

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to a) On March 2, 2010, the Government of Canada announced that up to $2 million would be allocated in urgent humanitarian assistance for those affected by the earthquake. This support is going towards addressing the priority gaps identified by the Chilean government and humanitarian partners on the ground. CIDA’s support is broken down as follows: i) $750,000 to the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies for the provision of essential non-food items, including hygiene kits, kitchen sets, blankets and jerry cans, and emergency shelter materials; the provision of curative and preventative health services, and to help improve access to safe water and sanitation conditions, reaching up to 90,000 earthquake-affected beneficiaries; ii) $500,000 to the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO, towards re-establishing health and medical services; replenishing emergency stocks of medicines and supplies; improving access to safe water and sanitation conditions; and providing technical support to health officials; iii) $500,000 to World Vision to reach over 31,000 earthquake-affected individuals with emergency shelter materials and hygiene supplies; improved access to clean water, and to provide child protection services; and iv) $250,000 to Oxfam Canada for the distribution of essential relief items; to help improve access to safe water; and to work with the government to ensure safe reconstruction of houses and livelihoods.

With regard to b) Canada continues to monitor the situation in Chile, and to ensure that our assistance is delivered in a timely and effective manner, according to the priorities identified by the Chilean government. However, at this time we are not considering any further assistance in response to the earthquake.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 154, 155, 167 and 171 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, Ms. Denise Savoie]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 154

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

With regard to the use of government-owned aircraft by Ministers and Ministers’ staff in the 2009-2010 fiscal year: (a) how many times were government-owned aircraft used by Ministers and exempt staff; (b) on what dates were the aircraft used; (c) who was on board the aircraft; (d) what was the purpose of the travel; (e) what was the origin and destination of each flight; (f) how many of these flights returned to their origin with no passengers on board; (g) what was the cost of each flight; (h) who authorized each flight; (i) what additional costs were incurred as a result of these flights; (j) what are the greenhouse gas emissions from each of these flights; (k) what is the government doing to offset the greenhouse gas emissions from each of these flights; (l) for each flight, what is the principal or usual purpose of the aircraft used; and (m) what is the current government policy on the use of government-owned aircraft for use by Ministers and their exempt staff?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 155

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

With regard to the use of chartered aircraft by Ministers and Ministers’ staff in the 2009-2010 fiscal year: (a) how many times were chartered aircraft used by Ministers and exempt staff; (b) on what dates were the aircraft used; (c) who was on board the aircraft; (d) what was the purpose of the travel; (e) what was the origin and destination of each flight; (f) how many of these flights returned to their origin with no passengers on board; (g) what was the cost of each flight; (h) who authorized each flight; (i) what additional costs were incurred as a result of these flights; (j) what are the greenhouse gas emissions from each of these flights; (k) what is the government doing to offset the greenhouse gas emissions from each of these flights; (l) for each flight, what is the principal or usual purpose of the aircraft used; and (m) what is the current government policy on the use of chartered aircraft for use by Ministers and their exempt staff?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 167

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

With regard to the Trans-Canada Highway: (a) what does the government consider the total length of the Trans-Canada Highway to be in kilometres; (b) how many kilometres remain “untwinned”, by province (i.e., single-lane highways designated with the Trans-Canada label); and (c) what is the cost per kilometre to “twin” sections of the Trans-Canada Highway that are currently single-lane and, if there is a difference from province to province, how much does it cost by province to twin the Trans-Canada Highway?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 171

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

With respect to the military junta in Burma and the Government of Canada: (a) what measures is the Government of Canada taking to ensure Canadian corporations end all commercial ties with Burma; (b) what measures is the government taking to ensure that no additional commercial contracts form between Canadian companies and Burma; (c) what domestic steps is the Government of Canada pursuing to guarantee those Canadian corporations financially benefiting from economic activity in Burma are restricted from securing any contracts from the government; (d) what steps is the Government of Canada taking to assure the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board does not maintain any direct or indirect holdings in companies conducting business with Burma; (e) what bilateral and multilateral efforts is the Government of Canada using to persuade Burma's military junta to relinquish power; (f) what diplomatic action is occurring between the Government of Canada and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, China, and India to pressure Burma's military junta to end violence against the people of Burma; and (g) what methods is the Government of Canada employing to pressure Burma's military junta to release Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy party?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Ms. Denis Savoie]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-13 is a good bill and we have to consider it. We cannot say that the situation is resolved because a Conservative MP knocked on a door and met a soldier. It is reasonable for the House to study this bill and refer it to committee, where members can share their points of view and get the government's reaction.

If our government calls on police forces, whether the RCMP, city or municipal, to help other countries within the framework of a Canadian mission, it is the same as sending a soldier. We ask our police officers to take part in such missions, which are quite dangerous. If we ask police officers to go to Afghanistan to help that country's police force, it is dangerous for them as well. They go abroad to do a job on behalf of our country, just as the military does. For that reason they should be included in this group.

Military and police veterans must benefit from the same programs upon their return from a mission. That is why there is a flaw in Bill C-13. All those sent on missions by our country should be treated in the same way.

Clause 3 of Bill C-13 should be amended by adding after line 5 on page 2 the following:

For the purposes of subsection (3.01), a member of a police force who is a Canadian citizen in the employ of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a Canadian citizen under contract with the Government of Canada, and who has been deployed as part of a mission outside Canada is considered to be a claimant.

That is just reasonable. We are not talking about thousands of people. We are talking about a minimum number of people who are sent away by our government. The jobs they do are very dangerous too. They are sent on missions, for example, to help the Afghan police reconstruct their force. They are in a dangerous area.

If they are not sent away, they are not going to be claiming the 52 extra weeks. However, if the government calls upon them to be outside the country to help around the world, they should be in that same category. The reason the NDP wants to make the change is really important. We must treat everyone the same. We believe this would be going in the right direction.

At the same time, there are problems across the country with people losing their jobs. The EI program belongs to workers. All across the country there are workers who lose their jobs. We are in an economic crisis and the government should be able to make other changes, not piecemeal like the way it is being done.

We sat at one time together, all parties, and prepared a report in the human resources committee with 28 recommendations. Those recommendations should come forward. The government should look at the big picture and at all the problems with employment insurance, and why people are not qualifying.

It should be 360 hours. Why do people who are sick have to have 600 hours to qualify for employment insurance? It is nonsense. No one chooses to be sick. Employment insurance is insurance to help workers. It is not a tax to bring in funds for the government to pay down the deficit and bring it to zero by using employment insurance premiums. That money should go back to the workers. We should work toward that and have the government do the right thing.

Our debate on this bill in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities will be truly important. I hope that the Minister of National Defence heard what was said. I hope that the government heard. I know it heard. The Prime Minister's Office listens to all debates and I am certain that it knows what is going on, and that it is concerned about our police forces.

It would be unfortunate for our police forces and other citizens, who are sent on missions commanded by the government, were not protected by Bill C-13 and did not have these 52 additional weeks of entitlement to parental leave.

It is important to a family that parents be with their children. The Conservative government says that it is pro-family. It should prove it by accepting our proposed amendments.

I want to talk about my own personal case. When my kids were born, my wife was working at the time. She took the time off to be with our kids. It makes a big difference in the future of those kids. The first year of the life of a child is very important. It should be spent around the parents, not in a daycare or with a babysitter.

Police officers, soldiers and any other foreign aid workers, who are requested by our government to be overseas, in the army, battling crime, helping places like Haiti rebuild, or for any reason, should be treated the same way as other Canadians.