House of Commons Hansard #31 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was copyright.
Gary Goodyear ConservativeMinister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the government wants to encourage businesses to do more research and development. That is where the high paying, high quality jobs of the future will come from.
I thank the member for finally getting interested in science and technology, research and development, because in his party's election platform it was mentioned nowhere.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, we are increasingly concerned that the government is selling out Canadians in order to push through a flawed deal with Europe. However, members should not take our word for it. I will quote Anna Robasch, a Danish member of the European parliament, who said, “At the moment Europe will be able to export more than what Canada will be exporting”.
When will the government admit that it is losing out in these negotiations and start putting the interests of Canadians first?
Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, that question only proves once again that the NDP is ideologically opposed to free trade.
On our side of the House, we welcome the ninth round of negotiations as the benefits to Canadian workers and businesses through a free trade agreement with the EU are expected to be enormous: a 20% boost in bilateral trade; a $12 billion annual boost to Canada's economy; 80,000 new jobs for Canadian workers; and $1,000 average extra income for Canadian families.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the minister and the government cannot see because of their rose-coloured glasses.
We need some straight talk on the impacts of this deal. European officials are quite happy to tell us what is going on. One European official boasted that Europe stands to gain while Canada loses. He said, “there will be some losers, there are always losers”.
Why is the government content with this loser status? Why will the government not start giving the straight goods to Canadians and stand up for them?
Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, there was some chattering across the way and I did not hear the end of the question but I will give what I expect the member is looking for as an answer.
Some hon. members may not have realized it but we received a strong mandate from Canadians, which is why we have a majority government and why we are pursuing free trade agreements that will benefit Canadians, benefit Canadian workers and supply Canadian jobs to Canadians who need those jobs.
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, Porter Airlines was nearly grounded by Transport Canada for failing to comply with air safety rules and yet, despite this extreme measure, the minister refuses to say what went wrong and whether the public was in any danger.
Why will the minister not tell Canadians what safety rules were violated by Porter Airlines? Why the extreme measures? Canadians have a right to know. Why is the minister hiding the truth from the public?
Denis Lebel ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of that question.
Transport Canada's top priorities are safety and security. Porter Airlines is in compliance with the Canadian aviation regulations. In 2008, Transport Canada's inspectors identified a minor concern with Porter's maintenance quality assurance program. The company fixed the problem and everything is fine. Porter is doing a good job in Canada.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, northern Canadians have been severely challenged by a spate of plane crashes in recent weeks killing 16 people. The government has failed to live up to its plans to beef up Transport Canada's team of safety inspectors. In fact, the number of inspectors has actually declined in the last two years.
Air travel is a way of life for northerners and many other Canadians. They should not have to roll the dice when they board a plane.
Why is the government dragging its feet on air safety? When will it live up to its promises and get serious about keeping--
Denis Lebel ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, that is completely incorrect. There is no justification for attacking the aviation safety of a nation that takes such matters so seriously. Our inspectors are extremely competent. Transport Canada does exceptional work and enjoys worldwide acclaim, and this member is attacking the integrity of Transport Canada workers. I cannot accept that. It is improper.
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Mr. Speaker, let us discuss safety in general. There were threats made to ground Porter because the carrier did not comply with Transport Canada's safety regulations. Transport Canada refuses to say why or to indicate whether passenger safety was jeopardized.
This government is incapable of acting in a transparent manner. Whether it is a question of costs of bills or even international agreements, the public has the right to know.
Why is the government not protecting Canadians instead of hiding the truth from them?
Denis Lebel ConservativeMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, instead of inciting public fear, the member should have listened to the answer that I gave earlier.
Aviation safety is Transport Canada's top priority. Porter Airlines complies with Canadian regulations. In 2008, Transport Canada inspectors were concerned about Porter's maintenance quality assurance program. The company has complied with all Transport Canada regulations. Porter is a great company. Transport Canada continues to carry out regular inspections.
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is only fair that the House add seats for British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, provinces that are under-represented here.
However, on its first attempt at democratic reform, the government left out Ontario and insulted its premier. On its second attempt, it left out Quebec, making it the only province with a relative decline in population to be under-represented.
Will the Minister of State for Democratic Reform finally table a bill that makes sense, and will he do it soon so that the House can study it?
Tim Uppal ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, our government made three distinct promises concerning representation in the House of Commons. First, we would increase the number of seats now and in the future to better reflect population growth in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. Second, we would protect the number of seats for smaller provinces. Finally, we would protect the proportional representation of Quebec according to population.
Those are our three commitments and we intend to bring forward legislation shortly respecting those commitments.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport. We have learned that Canada Post is currently making significant cuts to work hours in post offices in Canada.
The problem is that Quebec is being asked, unfairly and disproportionately, to cut more. Out of 150,000 hours of cuts planned, 53% are scheduled for Quebec, when it is 4% to 8% for the other provinces, on average. That means serious hardship in the regions. And doing this means that Canada Post is disregarding the suggestions made by the Fédération québécoise des municipalités.
Canada Post management is doing this. Why?
Steven Fletcher ConservativeMinister of State (Transport)
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is responsible for delivering mail to Canadians. We have done everything to ensure that the service charter that this government introduced is fulfilled, and Canadians will get their mail and Canadian businesses will be able to do their business.
I would like to point out that the opposition parties are the very parties that tried to prevent the government from ensuring that Canadians get their mail in a timely manner. The opposition parties should look at their own records.
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the President of the Treasury Board, in a Tweet, why the labour minister could speak for herself under attack in the House, while he cowered behind the foreign affairs minister.
He answered. He actually answered, albeit by Tweet, that the foreign affairs minister responded because he was the one in charge of G8 funding.
My question is for the Treasury Board President. Does this mean he will not answer G8 questions at his long-awaited appearance before committee?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I know that the President of the Treasury Board is excited to go to committee just because the member for Marham—Unionville will be there asking questions. We look forward to his participation in those committee hearings. I, myself, am prepared to come as well.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, let us see whether the Conservatives’ new CEO knows how to manage. The member responsible for the department of Muskoka must explain to the House, and not in committee when he decides to do it, why he intervened in the Gravenhurst project. Why did he put that project in the building Canada fund? It is not just the NDP asking questions. At this very moment, the project is under police investigation.
Is the minister for Muskoka going to show that he has more backbone than the Liberal Party and rise to reply?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret the tone the member has taken in his question. I do note that he has not had the courage to make any accusations against the President of the Treasury Board outside of this place, and there is a reason for that. It is because there is no substance to those allegations.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. President of the Treasury Board to step out any time to talk about it, but he would have to stand up first.
Canadians put a lot of faith in the Auditor General to hold the government to account, and he broke faith with the Canadian people when he hid documents from the Auditor General, when the Auditor General was trying to get to the bottom of this slush fund.
We now learn he has a new way of undermining the Auditor General, which is to cut its budget. This will mean fewer reports, fewer issues being investigated, just at a time when the Muskoka maverick gets his fingers on the booty of the Canadian taxpayer.
Is this the lesson, to attack the Auditor General?
Tony Clement ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. Of course, it has been 2,667 days since he promised that he would vote against the long gun registry. He failed to deliver on that.
The Auditor General volunteered to participate in the review of its spending. Let us be clear. This is a separate review from the deficit reduction action plan. This was made voluntarily by the Auditor General, and members on this side of the House applaud the interim Auditor General for making that case.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, after 131 days of taking a dive, that is as good as it gets: guns. That is like trying to beat me to death with popcorn.
The problem the minister needs to note is that if he looks guilty and acts guilty, people are going to realize that he may be guilty. The Auditor General said the rules were broken. The Auditor General said it is Parliament's job to investigate.
Will the government commit to a full parliamentary investigation to figure out how this man managed to take $50 million of border infrastructure and blow the money on untendered contracts in his riding?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, all that booing is going to hurt my feelings and it will also do nothing for my self-esteem.
The Auditor General has thoroughly looked into this matter. She wrote a report to Parliament. This government co-operated fully with her in the conduct of drafting her recommendations to Parliament. This government has accepted all the recommendations that the Auditor General has presented on how we can be more open, more transparent to Parliament.
