Debates of Feb. 14th, 2011

Sales Tax Harmonization

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know some people in Quebec City who are less happy, those who were members of the Liberal Party with this minister back when he would stand up for Quebec. Since he came here, he has stopped defending Quebec.

What Quebec's finance minister is telling us is that a political decision needs to be made. Right now, there are technical answers. Quebec has been doing this for a long time, dating back to the days of Mr. Bourassa, and the minister who just replied worked with Mr. Bourassa. I think that when he crossed the Ottawa River he forgot about the interests of Quebec.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I can simply say loud and clear that I was elected to Quebec's National Assembly. I do not know if he is capable of getting there himself.

Securities

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the Prime Minister said that the Conservative government's initiative to create a single securities commission, and I quote, “has the support of 10 provinces and territories”. However, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, British Columbia and Quebec are all opposed to this initiative.

When will the Prime Minister stop distorting reality and finally accept once and for all that his securities commission initiative has no reason to exist?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, this is a voluntary initiative that has always respected the provinces' jurisdictions and will continue to do so in the future.

We have a group of 10 provinces and territories that, for well over a year now, has been working with the Government of Canada in the development of the new Canadian securities regulator.

As members know, the bill was tabled in the House. It has been referred, by the government, to the Supreme Court of Canada. The argument will take place in April. We look forward to receiving the decision of the court.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should check his mental arithmetic again, because the membership in his volunteer army is dropping.

Given the project under which the Toronto stock exchange will be taken over by the London stock exchange, the Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec has the power to decide whether or not to authorize this transaction based on Quebec's interests.

Will the minister abandon his predatory plan that serves only to give his Bay Street friends the power that we have in Quebec and that we intend to continue to exert independently?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, today I made an announcement about the proposed merger of the London and Toronto stock exchanges, saying that the federal government would review the transaction under the Investment Canada Act. Of course, British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario have the right to review the transaction as well. From our point of view, this is a very complex transaction, so the review must be very thorough.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government is not able to see what is so obvious to the rest of the country: the takeover of the Toronto Stock Exchange needs meaningful input from the public. All we are asking is that the Prime Minister do what is required of him by law, in other words, the bare minimum.

Will the Prime Minister keep sitting on the fence, or will he finally recognize the significance of this takeover and announce a full public consultation?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, this is a very complex transaction. The Investment Canada Act must be taken into consideration. The process needs to comply with that act. Today I announced that the review will go ahead.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knew last week that this was a takeover and that we needed a full public review, not just minimum adherence to the law.

Before Christmas, in response to the NDP leader, the Prime Minister admitted that the Investment Canada Act was broken and needed fixing. Those were his words. Since then we have seen nothing from the government.

Now we have another takeover in a strategic sector. How many more takeovers will we see with no public consultation before the Conservative government finally revamps the act?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, my obligation of course is to review this under, as I said in French, the black letter of the law. Of course, I will be doing so pursuant to my obligations as Minister of Industry. It is a very complex transaction and we have to do it by the book. The book in this case is the Investment Canada Act.

There is a review. We are in favour of a review of the ICA. I referred it to the industry committee and we look forward to its deliberations as well.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after many months of promises, we finally see the beginning of some change by this government for some kind of public review. However, the provinces, business analysts, traders and even oil industry executives are all voicing concerns about this deal. While the exchanges are private companies, they are tightly regulated because of their strategic importance as capital markets.

Will the minister commit today to a full public review that allows for open and transparent consultations on both this decision and any conditions that might apply if the deal is approved?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we all know where the NDP members stand on this. Whenever there is a foreign entity that wishes to invest in Canada, they are against it; they are against it across the board, so their position is easy. Of course, when the Liberals were in power they were in favour of every transaction.

We take the view that the net benefit test to Canada under the act is an important test. We review each transaction individually to ensure that we do have a net benefit to Canada. We will continue to defend Canada's interests in this regard.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Immigration announced a 5% reduction in the family class of people coming to Canada.

I will give just one example of how discriminatory that decision is. It directly contradicts a statement made by the Minister of Human Resources who said last week that people did not need to send their kids to child care centres, but could have their parents and grandparents and their loved ones take care of them.

The minister is stopping those loved ones, is stopping those grandparents, from coming to Canada. How does he justify that kind of discriminatory practice?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I expect more from that member than that kind of base demagoguery.

The reality is that yesterday I announced that in 2010 we welcomed 281,000 permanent residents to Canada, the largest number in 57 years, and 106,000 more than the Liberals did shortly after they came to office and cut immigration levels. We are welcoming more family members, more economic immigrants. We have announced a 20% increase in the number of refugees that we have resettled.

We are getting the job done for newcomers.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although the minister did not reply in the spirit of Valentine's Day, I would like to ask him another question in the same spirit. Today is a day of love and reconciliation. So why did the minister announce a reduction in the number of people who will be allowed to immigrate to Canada in the family reunification category? They will have a harder time helping their families.

Are family values no longer important to the Conservative Party?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, we did no such thing. More and more Canadians' children will be welcome in Canada.

Let us be clear. What the member is really saying is that we should reduce the number of economic immigrants coming to Canada because there are trade-offs.

There are trade-offs, and this government is focused on the priorities of Canadians, and those are economic growth and prosperity. We need more newcomers working and paying taxes and contributing to our health care system. That is the focus of our immigration system.

Judiciary

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Minister of Immigration launched an attack on the judiciary. According to him, judges make up excuses to allow foreign criminals to stay in Canada. He described judges' rulings as capricious and he deplored what he called their misplaced clemency.

Will the minister give us the name of a single judge who has acted in this way or will he allow his disgusting comments to tarnish the reputation of every judge in Canada?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am not aware of the rulings her husband made when he was on the IRB.

That being said, I can say that it is unacceptable that we still have terrorists in Canada when we have been trying to turn them away at the border for 20 years. Everyone is entitled to natural justice and a fair trial, but at the end of the day, we should be able to turn away foreign criminals and terrorists at the border.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Immigration escalated his attack on the judiciary. He said that Canadian courts do not allow the law to be enforced.

This is a serious and unprecedented charge that must be explained. The Minister of Justice has a responsibility to defend the independence of our judges and our Canadian court system. Why has he been silent?

Why is the Minister of Justice allowing his colleague to intimidate our judges and our court system? Why?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. The Hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has the floor.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the ever-thoughtful and soft-spoken member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to actually read the speech that I delivered, in which I quoted the Supreme Court of Canada several times reproving junior courts for not having accepted decisions taken by the IRB, the public servants who are delegated to take quasi-judicial decisions.

The point is very simply this: We do not believe that convicted criminals or terrorists who are foreigners should be able to stay in Canada for a decade or longer, abusing the generosity of Canada. After due process they should be kicked out of Canada.

Government Appointments

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the night he was elected, the Prime Minister said that he would clean up Ottawa. Now, rather than making appointments on the basis of competency and transparency, the Conservative government is perpetuating the Liberal culture of entitlement by freely appointing friends and people who share the ideology of fundamentalist religious groups.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the recent appointment of Tom Pentefountas to the CRTC is just another example of the Conservative government's partisanship when making its appointments?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, Mr. Pentefountas will do a very good job as the vice-chair of the CRTC. We have replaced one Quebecker with another in order to ensure that our election policy is implemented and to guarantee that all Canadian voices will be heard.

Second, I have to say that I hope the Bloc Québécois will stop its continual attacks on those who are religious.

Rights & Democracy

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the same approach was used with regard to the announcement that Jacques Gauthier's and Elliot Tepper's terms at Rights & Democracy would be renewed. The opposition parties that were consulted on the issue unanimously refused to support these appointments.

Does the government commit to respecting the opposition's verdict or will it prove that these consultations were just for show by reappointing Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Tepper?