House of Commons Hansard #149 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are well aware that this country has a superior track record when it comes to job creation for unemployed workers. More Canadians are working now than before the recession. This is a rare exception among developed countries. We will continue to work to create jobs for Canadians.
Thomas Mulcair NDPLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not interested in meeting with the premiers. He is not interested in working together. He is not interested in the unemployed. He will travel around the world to Davos, to South America, to China, but he will not even sit down with Canadian premiers. In seven years he has only met with the premiers once, the worst record of any prime minister.
Why will the Prime Minister not even listen to the people on the ground? Why will the Prime Minister not work together with his own fellow Canadians here at home?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. I have met in person or spoken by telephone with Canadian premiers 250 times since 2006. We do these meetings not just with premiers but with other Canadians on a regular basis.
What is interesting is actually the Leader of the Opposition. When asked about the fact certain premiers wanted to meet him earlier in the spring about his comments about shutting down Canadian industry and imposing carbon taxes, he said that he saw no reason he should meet with any of these people.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Prime Minister continues to ignore the economic problems facing Canadians. The development of our natural resources is important for the economy, but the minister responsible for the takeover of Nexen by a Chinese state company has not said a word about the company's horrible human rights record and environmental record.
Is he aware of those problems and related concerns? Is he aware of that?
Mike Lake ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, Canada's investment review process is sound. It ensures that foreign investment is of net benefit to Canada.
Our government has a clear track record of encouraging economic growth, job creation and prosperity in Canada. The minister will take the time required to carefully examine the proposed acquisition to determine whether it is in the best interest of Canadians.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, we all know natural resources and the oil sands are an important part of Canada's economy. A Chinese state-owned company is—
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order, please. Members are once again asked to hold off on their applause until the member is finished asking the question.
The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park has the floor.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, the oil sands are an important part of Canada's economy, but a Chinese state-owned company is now—
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, a Chinese state-owned company is now trying to buy a major stake in the oil industry. Is it the Conservatives' plan to let other countries nationalize Canada's resources?
According to a new poll, only 8% of Canadians agree with this deal; 92% either disagree or want more information. Will the Minister of Industry acknowledge these concerns and agree to public consultations?
Mike Lake ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the six criteria that make up the net benefit test are very clear. Any Canadian, including the member opposite, can look them up online in section 20 of the Investment Canada Act. Simply Google the Investment Canada Act and they will be able to find those criteria. They include the level of economic activity; the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business; and the effect on productivity, industrial efficiency and other factors, including the effect on competition within the industry. It goes on and on. I do not have time to list them all, but let us be very clear that the minister will make the decision in the best interests of Canadians.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Contrary to what he said earlier about the employment insurance reform, the new measures have not been advantageous for the less fortunate. Before, unemployed workers could keep the first $75 they earned or the equivalent of the first 40% of their benefits. Now that amount is automatically deducted. The problem is that this is going to increase the number of less fortunate people and create an underground economy.
Is that what the Prime Minister wants to do, create an underground economy?
Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development
Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that workers find themselves in a better position when they work, regardless of what they do. That is our objective and we will continue to work toward it. It is a step and we will continue to improve the system in order to help people.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, either the minister is incompetent or she is misleading the House. Right now, we are asking the Prime Minister the question because he is supposed to be the boss.
The problem is that, when a person earns money, 50% of it is automatically taken away from him. That person will want to hide and will be unable to work. There are people who will work under the table. That is not how this works. The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister of all Canadians.
Will he replace his minister or will he resolve the problems once and for all in order to help Canada's less fortunate?
Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development
Mr. Speaker, under the old employment insurance system created by the Liberals, when unemployed workers worked for two, three or four days a week while receiving benefits, they lost every dollar they earned by working. It did not make sense and that is what we are changing: unemployed workers will now keep 50¢ of every dollar they earn. That is much better for them and for the community.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, just for the record, if a person was receiving a maximum amount of $485 in employment insurance benefits, he or she was allowed to keep $194. Now, with the new system, those individuals are losing—
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
There is a technical problem with the interpretation. Is it fixed? Okay.
The hon. member for Bourassa.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Speaker, members of the House can now understand the francophones. If they would learn my language, they would see that things would go well.
The problem right now is that people are losing more money than they were under the old system. I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Someone once said that providing for the poor is not a federal responsibility. Who said that? The Prime Minister. Now we are seeing his government abandoning the most vulnerable: EI recipients—
Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. The changes we made are to help Canadians get part-time work to make sure there are not barriers to that, because we know that getting part-time work often leads to full-time work. I can assure members that the vast majority of Canadians who are on EI will be better off when they work part-time.
Most unemployed workers who work while receiving benefits are doing better thanks to the changes that have been made; however, we will continue to improve the system to help unemployed workers.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, in response to my order paper question, we discovered that CF-18 pilots have shut down one of that jet's two engines 228 times in mid-flight since 1988 due to safety concerns, or nearly once a month. All 228 times our pilots got safely back to the base with the CF-18's remaining engine.
With the single engine F-35, this scenario could have resulted in disaster. Do Conservatives understand this concern of experts in the field? Can they explain why they are ignoring concerns about choosing a single engine aircraft?
Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat is in place to ensure there is due diligence and transparency in our decision to replace the CF-18s. It includes a number of experts, including two independent members, one being a very well-respected former Canadian auditor general who is working with the secretariat.
No money has been spent on the purchase of any new fighter aircraft, and no money will be spent until the secretariat independently verifies the cost and the requirements to replace our CF-18s.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is just one more an example of the shoddy work done by the Conservatives on this file. Since 1988, our pilots have been saved by the twin-engine CF-18s 228 times: there were two engines. It is easy to see why the CF-18s were a good choice for our forces; this was an insurance policy that pilots will not have with the Conservatives' F-35s.
Can the Conservatives explain why they chose the F-35 when it will not give pilots a second engine that could save them in the event of a disaster?