Debates of June 11th, 2010

Government Programs

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of the Liberals' approach over the past four years.

We announced an effective program with worthy recipients, in this case 47 that met the criteria. The Liberals then identified the next 10. They complain about them not getting funding. Of course, if we funded those 10, the Liberals would find the next 10 and complain about them not getting funding.

That is the problem with the Liberal Party, whose leader sees his only two responsibilities as tax and spend.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the parliamentary secretary that the festival funding program had $12 million in extra funding that was never spent. The minister, instead, shifted cash to dubious G8 projects in his riding, $1 million for sidewalks that obstruct the fire hydrants and a $100,000 gazebo.

Canadians see this for what it is: blatant pork-barrelling politics at the expense of vital cultural events. How can the government possibly defend this action?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as part of Canada's economic action plan, we are making infrastructure investments with municipalities, with the province, and Parry Sound—Muskoka. We are also making important economic investments in every part of the country.

We are investing in the city of Toronto. We are investing in the Royal Ontario Museum, not far from the member's riding. We are investing in the Art Gallery of Ontario, not far from the member's riding. We are investing in a new cultural centre in Regent Park, not far from the member's riding. That is all the federal government is doing to support culture in the city of Toronto.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has been caught rigging the selection criteria for the marquee tourism events program in order to exclude certain festivals for ideological reasons. The festivals are right to be upset because the government changed the rules after the applications had been submitted.

Will the government admit that it changed the criteria midstream in order to exclude certain events for ideological reasons?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting culture, this Conservative government has done more than any government in Canadian history. We have been more supportive for culture than any government before.

In fact, I would point out a couple of examples to the member. Les FrancoFolies received $350,000 over two years, the Pop Montreal International Music Festival received $7,300, Le FestiVoix received $36,000, The Envol and Macadam Festival received $25,000, Jazz and Blues Festival in Chicoutimi received $8,300, Festival du nouveau cinéma received $91,000, and Festival Mode & Design received $53,000.

I have a long sheet here. I can keep going.

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

Mr. Speaker, in addition to adapting the selection criteria to the Conservative agenda, the Minister of Industry, who managed to get money out of the G8 budget for an arena, diverted $8 million from the festivals program to the Canadian Tourism Commission, a crown corporation that already receives its funding from Parliament.

Does the minister realize that if he had not diverted that $8 million, he could have funded, among others, the FrancoFolies, the Festival des Rythmes du monde and the New France Festival?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the MTEP is to help out the Canadian tourism industry, which is in great need. The goals of this two-year recovery program have been met. During the first year of the program, almost 75% of the funding was granted to large Canadian cities. During the second year, we want to make sure that the smaller cities and towns can also benefit from the program and that is why 19 new events will receive funding this year.

Forestry Industry

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while the forestry industry is recovering from the crisis elsewhere in the world, Quebec and Canadian companies continue to experience difficulties. According to an international comparison done by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the top five Quebec companies listed on the stock exchange lost $466 million in the last quarter.

Why does the government refuse to help these businesses and workers get through the crisis with measures such as loan guarantees?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, we are working with the Government of Quebec and with the forestry industry to find short-, medium- and long-term solutions.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many proposals have been made, but the government rejects them, even though they are worth considering, according to officials with the Department of International Trade. Loan guarantees are legal.

Foreign governments have taken advantage of the crisis to invest and modernize their forestry industries. As the recovery is starting to take hold, these companies are ready to capture the markets. Businesses here will be emerging from the crisis weak and in debt, and will not be able to take advantage of the new opportunities that will be out there. Why does the Conservative government refuse to invest—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear, we are working with the forestry industry. Imagine a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition. Imagine the Leader of the Bloc Québécois as Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada.

National Defence

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it looks as though the government's sole-sourced purchase of new fighter jets is going to cost at least $16 billion. That is $16 billion to create jobs outside this country. At the beginning of this week, reports said $6 billion, then $9 billion, and now it is going to be $16 billion.

When Canadians are being asked to contain their spending, how can the government justify spending $16 billion without any competition and without any regional development? How could the government not even consider a single alternative?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, that is just absolute rubbish from top to bottom.

The government has been looking at the next generation fighter capability for many years. In fact, it started with the previous Liberal government. This is a program that was started by Art Eggleton when he was minister of national defence.

Everything that we do is going to have economic spinoffs for Canadian industry. That is how every program has been run so far and that is how this program is going to be run as well.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The question is competition, Mr. Speaker. Is our Prime Minister just a puppet on a string for U.S. industry? What about Canadians and what about Canadian jobs? A sole-sourced contract to a U.S. parent company is just plain unacceptable.

Costs for new fighter jets are going up faster than the security costs for the G8, from $6 billion to $9 billion to $16 billion. This is the height of incompetence.

With a $50 billion deficit, how can the Conservatives justify spending $16 billion without competition?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, my noisy friend from the porta-potty party over there is playing with numbers that he knows absolutely nothing about of which he states.

The simple fact is this a capability that is required by the Canadian Forces. It is required of us by our allies. It will give jobs to Canadians. It will give jobs to Canadians by the thousands.

Every program that we have done, and frankly any program that the Liberals did when they were in power, every contract that the military does has dollar for dollar value back to Canadian industry, back to Canadian jobs, and back to the people of Canada. The hon. member should get his facts straight.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago today all parties gathered in the House to recognize and apologize for the suffering of first nations, Inuit and Métis who had been mistreated and abused in residential schools. It seemed like a turning point, but unfortunately, they were merely words from the government. Since then it has been one failed policy after another.

This year the Conservatives promised to finally endorse the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but they have changed their minds.

Why does the government continue to say one thing and do another when it comes to Canada's aboriginal people?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Au contraire, Mr. Speaker. Not only was an apology made, it was an apology made by the Prime Minister of Canada after a long, long wait where other parties did not make such an apology.

After that apology, we have made record investments in housing, a record amount of investments in new schools and in education, tripartite agreements across the country, investments in child and family services from coast to coast to improve the lot of families, and important legislation to give more rights to aboriginal people.

In word and deed, we continue to work closely with our aboriginal--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Labrador.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, which helped thousands of people across the country deal with the legacy of residential schools, has been killed by this government.

There were 134 projects from coast to coast to coast simply abandoned. Aboriginal students received $2,000 less in educational support than the Canadian average, and they fall further behind. There are more than 8,000 first nations children in care and the government ignores their pleas.

Where is the hope and promise the apology was to bring? Why the hollow words two years ago?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, there is quite a bit of nonsense in that statement. Not only was an apology made and forgiveness sought in a very sincere way, but this was a very historic moment here in the House of Commons and across the country.

What I hear from aboriginal people is that they do not want empty promises. As former minister Bob Nault said about the Kelowna accord, “That thing won't work”. It is okay to say we want things to get better for aboriginal people, but we actually have to do things. Part of doing things involves increasing child and family services, and changing the model. It involves increasing funding for education and changing the model, and Mr. Speaker, we--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week has been a busy one for Canada's immigration minister. He introduced legislation to crack down on crooked immigration consultants as well as to make Canadian citizenship more difficult to obtain through fraud and easier to lose because of it.

Meantime, the Liberal Party's position on refugee reform would change, based on whichever side of the bed the Liberal leader's former Quebec lieutenant happened to wake up on that day.

Will the immigration minister update the House on how this week's immigration changes will benefit all Canadians, including immigrants?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this week we did announce changes to crack down on crooked consultants, to throw the book at those who would exploit newcomers to Canada by charging them thousands of dollars. These consultants basically con newcomers. We will make that a criminal offence.

We have also brought in legislation to protect the integrity and value of Canadian citizenship from those who would cheapen or abuse it. We will make sure that residency means physical presence in Canada, that crooked citizenship consultants are now regulated in the future.

These measures, combined with an emerging parliamentary consensus to address the urgent need for refugee reform, are very positive for all Canadians, particularly new Canadians.

National Defence

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, TV's Mike Holmes tells us we should not even build a sundeck without getting three quotes because competition is the only way we know we are getting best value. Yet, the Conservatives want to sole-source the largest military procurement in Canadian history without any competition. That means we pay their price on their terms with no competitive pressure whatsoever.

If Karlheinz Schreiber were not in jail in Germany, I would be convinced he was bamboozling another generation of Conservative cabinet ministers.

What other arms dealing lobbyist has convinced this government to throw reason, logic, good judgment, and any business sense out the window?