Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2011

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is using security as a foil to disguise his failures on trade with the United States.

Yes, the border has thickened, but do not for a minute think that it has to do with security. Labelling rules have nothing to do with security. Buy American legislation has nothing to do with security. Higher fees at the border have nothing to do with security. Recent U.S. softwood lumber claims have nothing to do with security. It is our Canadian sovereignty.

Why is the Prime Minister having these discussions with the Americans but not having these discussions with Canadians?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal would be concerned that we are talking to a trading partner with whom we do 75% of our trade. Of course we want to keep those lines of trade and security open. We will continue to do that. We are committed to that. I hope that the Liberal Party will support this because it is right for Canada. It is in the best interests of our country.

Harmonization of Sales Taxes

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

Mr. Speaker, according to tax specialist Luc Godbout, Quebec's and Ottawa's sales taxes are essentially harmonized, which means that both taxes are applied to the same goods, with a few exception, such as books, diapers and nursing products. These goods are not taxed by the Government of Quebec.

My question for the Prime Minister is this: is the problem with the negotiations between the two parties a result of the fact that Ottawa is determined to impose a tax on certain goods, such as books and diapers, which calls into question Quebec's policy on culture and families?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc said that there were differences between the federal sales tax and Quebec's sales tax, and the reason is that the taxes are not harmonized. That is what we are in the process of negotiating with the Government of Quebec and these negotiations will be held in good faith.

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

Mr. Speaker, there can be some differences, as there are in the agreements with Ontario, and the Prime Minister knows that as well as I do. What is causing problems right now is the stubbornness of the Minister of Finance—from Ontario—who gave $4.3 billion to Ontario but who refuses to do so for Quebec, even though Quebec did this back in 1992.

I am urging the Prime Minister, as is Mr. Bachand, Quebec's finance minister, to intervene in this issue, to take it over and to resolve it once and for all.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we favour sales tax harmonization, but that decision is up to the provinces. Quebec has the option to sign an agreement like the ones signed by Ontario, British Columbia and the Maritimes. Until now, Quebec has not decided to do so, but we will continue negotiating in good faith to harmonize sales taxes, while respecting our agreements with the other provinces.

Tax Evasion

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government lacks political will when it comes to both harmonization and tax havens.

In parliamentary committee, Brigitte Alepin, a specialist in the field, admonished the government for making it easier for the wealthy to evade taxes. She reminded us that the last budget contained new provisions that encourage tax evasion through the use of tax havens.

Why does this government encourage the use of tax havens?

[Keith Ashfield, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, this government is working to address the issue of tax havens.

The following is an interesting quote from Jeffrey Owens of the OECD recently at the finance committee:

I talk to a lot of business people, financial advisers, investment banks. And the one thing that clearly has changed here is that if they get a Canadian client who comes to them and says, “Look, I want to evade taxes; perhaps I could use Barbados or somewhere else”, they'll say “Forget it. Those days are gone.” So there's been a change in attitude on the part of the business community, and that should not be underestimated.

This is thanks to the work of our government.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that same individual chided Canada for having agreements with Panama, which is a tax haven.

Since the beginning of the crisis, Canadian banks have raked in an after-tax net profit of $46 billion, $6 billion of that because of their presence in tax havens. That seems to me to be quite a bit.

By putting an end to tax evasion, the government could rebalance its finances and would have the leeway to help the economic sectors that need it.

Why is the Minister of Finance helping his banking friends and saving them billions of dollars through their use of tax havens?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Once again this year, Mr. Speaker, the World Economic Forum has rated our financial system the best in the world. This has happened for several years now.

We have been through a very difficult time, a very difficult recession, but we are one of those countries, and there are only a few in the developed world, that did not have to take taxpayers' money and put it into our banks.

Our banks were able to continue. Our credit system was able to continue. That is one of the reasons jobs have been recovered, and we have about 400,000 net new jobs in Canada now than we lost during the course of the recession.

Pensions

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must remain open-minded. Public pension plans carry low risk. They are indexed to account for inflation and they do not cost much to manage. No other retirement savings method offers the same advantages at such a low cost.

Why protect the interests of big businesses that do not need help or protection? Why will the Prime Minister not instead help families and workers by improving public pension plans?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and his colleagues, his provincial counterparts, are discussing ways to improve the Canada pension plan. However, we must reach an agreement with the provinces and at this time, Canadians do not want us to increase premiums and taxes to improve pensions. We are currently examining this option for improving our pension system, as we have already done through many other measures.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, governing is about making choices.

The Prime Minister could choose to work with us on the New Democrat plan that would make life more affordable for our seniors or he could choose Bay Street and more corporate giveaways. Clearly, that will be the Conservatives' choice, judging by the reaction in their backbenches at the moment.

The New Democrats' CPP plan is doable. It is modest in cost and it is realistic, and it has been endorsed by the former chief actuary of the CPP.

Will the Prime Minister agree to our practical pension plan and include it in the budget?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated earlier, the government has adopted several measures to improve the pension system in this country.

The Minister of Finance and his provincial counterparts recently announced the development of the registered pooled pension plan in terms of improvements to the CPP.

That is an ongoing subject of discussion with the provinces. The provinces do have to approve. Many do not approve and at this time, at least in our view and certainly in the view of most, this is not the time for increases in CPP premiums.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the Conservatives have made their choice. Their preferred option for fixing the pensions is to take the big banks' approach. It reminds me of that ad we see on TV. The Bay Street model does not work. The managers take up to 40% in fees. We call them egg management fees.

According to the polls, Canadians prefer building their retirement based on the improved Canada public pension plan. That is very clear. Why is that? It is because it is a plan that is owned by Canadians, guaranteed efficient and inflation-proof.

Will the Conservatives include improvements to the CPP in the budget?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, changes to the CPP require the consent of the provinces. It cannot be done by the federal government unilaterally.

While the Canada pension plan is an important part of our retirement income system, so are a range of private and individual savings options. There are many financial planners in many financial firms in this country who do an excellent job of providing services for their clients in planning for their retirement.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has been a leader in nuclear energy for 60 years. The Conservative policies are threatening that reputation as well as tens of thousands of jobs.

When the Conservatives announced their intention to sell AECL, they put a halt to all contracts. Meanwhile, Ontario is looking to expand its nuclear generation, and AECL would be the natural choice.

Why is the government starving AECL, reducing its value and grinding Ontario's energy plan to a halt?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, we are doing nothing of the sort. Our government is continuing the transaction process in order to establish a more competitive CANDU, Inc. under private ownership and to protect the interests of Canadian taxpayers. We hope to conclude this process as quickly as possible in order to provide certainty to AECL employees, to clients and to the industry.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, policies are reducing the value of AECL and it is also all about jobs. There are tens of thousands of jobs in the GTA alone. Ontario was hit hard by the recession and many of those jobs have not returned. There is a real opportunity to create and maintain jobs, as well as ensure that Canada remains a world leader in nuclear energy.

Why do the Conservatives insist on killing jobs and selling out Canada's nuclear industry? Have they never heard of the Avro Arrow?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy is staggering. For 13 long years, the Liberals starved that organization of funding and support. Our government is continuing this transaction process. We are going to get it done as quickly as possible and it is going to be done for the benefit of the industry, for the clients and for the employees.

National Defence

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the government is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ram the F-35 aircraft down Canadians' throats.

Ministers' tours, generals' tours—we have never seen anything like it. Even worse, they are making the same announcements more than once and claiming that some contracts are in jeopardy. But when we check, we find the contracts have already been completed. It is an outright sham.

Are they worried about Canadians learning the truth: that they are incompetent and are wasting taxpayers' money?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I think the person who is worried is the member opposite because the more he talks against the F-35 the more he shows his true colours. He is against the aerospace industry in his own region. He is working against those men and women he used to serve with.

In this government we are going to invest in the important equipment that the men and women in uniform need. We are an important country. In the future there may be threats against this country. We are going to give our men and women in uniform the equipment they need to do the important job that we ask of them. I am very proud of this investment. We are going ahead.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be glad to know that I am defending taxpayers' money. The Minister of National Defence says the F-35 can be modified to be compatible with Canada's refuelling tankers within the, and I quote, “current budget allotted for the F-35”.

Could the minister please inform Canadian taxpayers how much this additional modification will cost? While we are at it, Canadians would also like to know what is the current budget allotted for the F-35. The minister acts as though he knows. Let us find out.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, if the member were paying attention he would know: it is $9 billion. The refuelling capability is within that budget.

I had hoped, given his background, that he would boldly go where no Liberal has gone before and would support the men and women in uniform. Alas, he has fallen back on that old Liberal position of playing politics on the backs of the men and women in uniform.

Foreign Affairs

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he would judge the Egyptian government by its ability to maintain stability.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us whether the stability he is looking for will be achieved by keeping President Mubarak in power?