House of Commons Hansard #60 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was financial.
James Moore ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, we are here. After the last election campaign, we made a commitment to Canadians in our throne speech to strengthen our system of copyright laws, which we have done. We have introduced our Bill C-32 here in the House to improve our copyright laws. This bill is balanced, and it serves the interests of consumers and creators.
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the minister had reversed the words “consumers” and “creators”, we might have thought he was a real heritage minister.
The SPACQ also deplores the fact that the government continues to place the burden of taking legal action on creators, who lack the means to assert their rights.
How can the government claim to be supporting creators when it did not invite the Union des artistes or the SPACQ to its consultation and it has introduced an imbalanced bill that clearly favours American companies?
James Moore ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, that is not true. They were consulted. They made a presentation to the government, and we listened to everyone. We listened to the needs of consumers and the needs of creators.
The Canadian Recording Industry Association and the Canadian Independent Music Association said that Canadian artists need better protection against piracy to build a successful digital music market. They thanked us for this bill, which protects the rights of artists who make a living from their art.
Those are results for artists.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources continues to deny reality when it comes to accountability for a major oil spill.
Current rules are clear: corporate liability is limited to $30 million on the east coast and $40 million elsewhere.
If the minister read the regulations instead of sticking to Dimitri Soudas' deceitful script, he would know that.
When will the minister correct this legal loophole?
Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, there is indeed absolute liability across Canada, but one thing is certain, and my colleague did not mention it: there is unlimited civil liability.
The member should stop scaring Canadians. One thing is clear: no drilling proposals in Canada will be approved unless Canadian regulators are convinced that there will be no harm to workers' health or to the environment.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister was advised to read section 167 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. He has obviously failed to do his homework.
Maybe he can scan section 162 of the accord implementation act for Newfoundland and Labrador. This provision is also clear. Absolute liability is limited to $30 million on the east coast where deep water drilling is currently under way.
Why will the minister not protect Canadian taxpayers and ensure oil companies are 100% liable in the case of an offshore disaster?
Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, it is good to read the regulation, but it is good to understand it too, and I am not sure that my colleague does.
What I said yesterday, indeed there is an absolute liability, but there is an unlimited civil liability, so he has to stop frightening Canadians with that.
We enforce world-class standards. Let me be clear that Canadian regulators will not allow any offshore activity unless they are convinced that the environment and the safety of workers will be protected.
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government talks big on defence, but refuses to support the people who have actually defended us. This minister, the first part-time veterans minister in half a century, has not offered a single new program, benefit or idea since taking this job.
Now, even his own senior adviser, the Veterans Ombudsman, is heaping criticism on the half-time minister. Should Colonel Stogran be worried about keeping his own job, like everyone else who has been critical of this government?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn ConservativeMinister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)
Mr. Speaker, of course we are taking Mr. Stogran's recommendations and comments very seriously. I also want to remind that party that since coming to power, we have invested over $2 billion in various programs to help and provide services to our veterans. Naturally, we care deeply about the honour of those who defend our country and ensure peace and freedom. That is why we support them.
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Speaker, every new dollar that has been spent on Veterans Affairs has been legislated and has been required. Nothing is new. Colonel Stogran has been travelling the country listening to veterans. He knows that despite the rhetoric, this Conservative government is neither willing nor able to effectively help our soldiers when they come home.
Programs, care, and treatment are denied the very people who put their lives on the line for us. When will this part-time Minister of Veterans Affairs take the advice of his own ombudsman?
Jean-Pierre Blackburn ConservativeMinister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that the Liberals refused to deal with the agent orange issue, but our government took action.
First, we made ex gratia payments of $20,000 to veterans affected by agent orange. Second, we restored benefits for allied veterans, benefits that the Liberals eliminated. Third, we doubled the number of clinics for veterans affected by post-traumatic stress disorder.
We implemented those three measures since coming to power because we want to help our veterans.
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Speaker, thousands of people are obtaining Canadian citizenship fraudulently, by lying about how much time they have spent in Canada.
The Globe and Mail found 300 people claiming to live at the same address in Mississauga and Radio-Canada exposed a similar scheme going on in Quebec.
Will the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell us what the government is doing to crack down on those who obtain their Canadian citizenship illegally, even though they live permanently abroad?
Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question and her hard work on these issues.
It is true that we see many very troubling criminal investigations into citizenship fraud, sometimes hundreds of people applying for citizenship registered at the same false address.
We are taking action on this to preserve and protect the value and integrity of Canadian citizenship. We will be regulating citizenship consultants. We will be clarifying that residency in Canada requires actual physical presence here, rather than just a post box. We will be increasing penalties for citizenship fraud to $100,000 or five years in jail, and we will be streamlining the process to revoke citizenship from those who obtained it fraudulently.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, the government is rushing into a multibillion dollar fighter jet procurement, just after modernizing the fleet. It is forging ahead with what amounts to a sole source contract, cutting out competitors, and sidetracking a transparent bidding process that would have produced strong industrial and regional benefits, creating jobs and supporting aerospace industry in Canada.
Does the Minister of National Defence still plan to go ahead with the advanced contract award notice, and can he explain the rush and the recklessness of this deal?
Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the government has committed to acquiring the next generation fighter capability as part of the Canada first defence strategy. This represents a key capability in the Canadian Forces. The government has not yet made a decision. The procurement process will conform to government rules.
I can assure the member that whatever procurement process is followed, it will benefit the Canadian Forces and benefit Canadian industry.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, a military contract like this one could be a lifesaver for Canada's struggling aerospace industry.
While many subcontracts for civilian aircraft are awarded internationally, military contracts are more resistant to this kind of transfer to other countries. What defies understanding is that the Conservatives are about to give a $10 billion contract to the Americans, without going to tender and with no guarantees regarding regional industrial benefits.
If the Americans can impose their ITAR rules in our factories, why can we not at least have our fair share of the pie for our own planes?
Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, that is absolute rubbish. Whatever contract is signed is going to benefit the Canadian Forces and Canadian industry.
That is a bit rich coming from those members who did not want us to buy the C-17. The soldiers in Afghanistan who depend on it are happy. The people of Haiti whose lives we saved are happy.
Those are the same guys who did not want us to buy the Leopard tank. The Taliban may agree with that, but members of the Canadian Forces whose lives have been saved in Afghanistan are sure glad we did that.
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, 74% of Quebeckers and 85% of young people aged 18 to 24 believe that the firearms registry should be maintained. The Bloc Québécois is the only party to represent Quebec's interests, since the Conservatives and half the NDP want to dismantle the registry. Furthermore, we have no guarantee that all Liberal members will show up to vote.
Will the government reverse its plan to eliminate the firearms registry, a registry that saves lives?
Vic Toews ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that our government is committed to the elimination of the wasteful long gun registry. We want to focus on effective measures that will actually keep crime rates down rather than criminalizing farmers and hunters in my riding, and other ridings across rural Canada.
I would invite those members of the NDP and those Liberal members who voted in favour of Bill C-391 to vote for it again to ensure that we eliminate the wasteful long gun registry.
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Speaker, gun control is universally supported in Quebec. The National Assembly has confirmed this on three separate occasions through unanimous votes. Police forces, public health officials, the Barreau du Québec, the families of victims of crime, women's groups and 67% of Quebeckers from the Quebec City region are calling for the registry to be maintained.
How can the Conservative members from Quebec claim to represent Quebec when they oppose the broad consensus reached on this matter?
Vic Toews ConservativeMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that while we support the licensing of people, and the registration of prohibited and restricted weapons, we do not support the wasteful long gun registry.
If that member actually communicated truthfully with her constituents about what the implications are in terms of the long gun registry, I believe that there would be a dramatic change in even those who presently support the long gun registry.
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, Conservative political staffers have been caught illegally interfering with requests made under the access to information law and no one is being held accountable.
As part of its investigation, the ethics committee has exercised its right to call Dimitri Soudas as a witness. But the Prime Minister seems to think his director of communications is somehow too delicate a butterfly to answer questions about his conduct.
If the Prime Minister really believes accountability is more than an empty election slogan, would he instruct Mr. Soudas to respect the legal summons and appear before the committee?
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, political staff members are merely respecting a decision of the cabinet of this country, which is to continue with the three centuries old tradition of ministerial responsibility.
The Liberal Party continues to throw mud and tries to destroy reputations. I have a letter here that was sent to a Liberal member from Montreal who had originally filed an ethics complaint against the Minister of Industry when he tried to support small business in his riding. It indicates: “I will not be conducting an inquiry or an examination into this matter at this time”. The reason that she cites is that there simply is no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing.
We have a terrific industry minister who upholds the highest standards of--
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that no one has the right to block a committee from calling a non-parliamentarian as a witness, neither the Prime Minister nor his cabinet. What is happening here is that a committee is being frustrated for no good reason.
Will Mr. Soudas' boss, the Prime Minister, agree to appear before the ethics committee and explain why he is ordering his staffer to break the law and not respect a legal summons?
