Debates of Feb. 6th, 2013

The Budget

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the 2012 budget focused on job creation and the long-term prosperity of our economy.

Obviously, we are going to continue in that same vein.

I want to be clear when I say that we were very disappointed in the NDP when it voted against many measures such as the small business hiring tax credit, improvements to the youth employment strategy, improved economic opportunities for young aboriginals and so on.

I hope that they will support these sorts of measures in the 2013 budget because they will help Canadians.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny and sad that the Minister of Finance is already saying that people will be disappointed with this budget. He is off to a great job selling it.

More people are unemployed now than before the recession and middle-class families are being squeezed.

Budgets are about choices. Will the Conservative be changing their priorities to focus on priorities like infrastructure and creating good jobs? Or will we end up with another budget where Conservatives help their insider friends, attack their political enemies, and ignore the real priorities of Canadians?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it was the NDP that Canadians were disappointed with, because they voted against so many good measures to maintain the job creation we have. Here I might cite that we have created over 900,000 net new jobs since the recession in July 2009.

Canadians were disappointed that the NDP did not support a number of measures. Let me continue to cite those measures. One is the opportunities fund, which would have helped a number of disabled people get into the job market. Thankfully, our Conservative government voted in favour of that budget to put that forward. However, the NDP, of course, voted against it.

Electoral Boundaries

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the unprecedented effort by the Conservative Party, and I presume the government, to gerrymander the riding boundaries in Saskatchewan, I wonder if the Prime Minister could give us a categorical assurance today that there will be no special partisan legislation with respect to this matter, but rather that the government will ensure and guarantee that it will bring in a law that would be entirely compatible with the final conclusions of the boundary commission in Saskatchewan and, indeed, right across the country.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let me once again be clear on the process.

Under the law, independent boundary commissions are established. Those commissions, and part of the process, is to get widespread input, not just from parliamentarians and political parties but from the general public.

In the case of Saskatchewan, I am told that some 75% of the submissions made to that commission have been opposed to the current proposals. However, in the end, it is the commission that makes the decisions.

Some years ago, the Liberals tried to bring in partisan legislation to overturn boundary commission recommendations. We would never do that.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is dead wrong and history will certainly show that that was not the case.

However, I want a clear commitment from the Prime Minister. Can he assure us that the government will abide by the commission's decisions?

Will it stop putting political pressure on a judicial commission, as it has done with the robocalls and even the comments made today by the Prime Minister of Canada?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

I have already answered that question. The government will not make any changes to the process.

However, I can tell the leader of the Liberal Party that he is completely wrong. After the 1991 distribution, both houses of Parliament spent over a year fighting—and I know because I was a spokesperson—Liberal attempts to change legislation to overturn boundary recommendations.

There is a public process. All parties—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

The Prime Minister has the floor. We will have a bit of order.

The Right Hon. Prime Minister.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the process is independent. However, it allows and encourages parliamentarians, political parties, and all Canadians to make known their views on this matter, and we have done so and will continue to do so.

International Trade

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister, in light of press reports, as we have no other information from the minister, about what is and is not on the table in the trade negotiations with the European Union.

I wonder, given the fact that the Prime Minister gave a solemn assurance to the House before and to the people of Canada that the supply management system of this country would be defended by the government in all of its trade negotiations, if he could he give us a categorical assurance that dairy is not on the table and that, in fact, the dairy farmers of this country will not be sold out by the Conservative Party and his government.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government has defended our supply management system successfully in various trade negotiations, and we continue to do so.

In fact, to my knowledge, the only person I am aware of who is suggesting the abolition of the supply management system is a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party.

The Environment

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister called—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order.

The hon. member for Halifax.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister called the report of the Commissioner of the Environment “useful”.

The problem is that it is only useful if something is done with it. The report lays out how to improve the response to offshore oil spills and protect our waterways where there is hydraulic fracturing.

When will the Conservatives establish “useful” environmental protection policies?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that my colleague opposite asked this, because yesterday at the natural resources committee, the Commissioner of the Environment said:

I don't have the slightest doubt that this government is absolutely focused on actually closing the gaps we've identified.

Also, in a television program later that day, he said, of his tenure as Commissioner of the Environment:

I have more confidence in this system than I did going in.

It is our government that has seen actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It is our government that has protected more parkland than any other government in history. It is our government that it is getting the job done.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Conservatives could read the rest of the report, because there are some pretty stark warnings in there.

Yesterday it was pretty disheartening to hear the Conservative government claim again that it has no responsibility whatsoever to protect Canadians from potentially toxic substances in hydraulic fracturing fluid. Conservatives know that Health Canada and Environment Canada have responsibility over these toxic substances. Industry already agrees that public disclosure is the best practice.

Why is the Minister of the Environment shirking his responsibility?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in the House and numerous times in the past, our government knows that the primary responsibility for hydraulic fracturing is with the provinces. This is a jurisdictional issue.

On top of that, our government has a world-class chemicals management plan that has assessed thousands of toxic substances, and we have worked to make sure that industry and Canadians are safe in the management of these. We will continue on this track.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, so it is all right with the Conservatives for companies to inject any kind of chemical into the ground. Canadians do not deserve that.

There are other concerns raised by the commissioner, such as an inadequate liability regime for offshore oil spills. The NDP has spoken out about this problem since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster. The Conservatives have done nothing for three years.

Will they implement the commissioner's recommendations or will they again be negligent and irresponsible?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague opposite of what the Prime Minister said yesterday, that we understand that the fundamental principle of our environmental review system and our environment regime is the polluter pay principle.

We are committed to reviewing this on an ongoing basis. That said, we also know that we need to have strong measures in place to ensure that these spills do not occur. If members look at our responsible resource development package, they can see the measures that we have put in place. Our government has doubled the amount of pipeline inspections and applied more rigorous standards for tanker safety.

This is our government and this is the real record that we have on environment protection.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians would have liked the parliamentary secretary to stand up honestly and say, “We have done nothing about liability, and we are ashamed”. I think that is what they would want to hear.

The Conservatives rammed through the laws that destroy environmental protection, but they will not do anything to fix the nuclear liability problem. The Fukushima disaster cost nearly $200 billion.

The New Democrats have warned them. Experts have warned them. Now the environment commissioner is warning them. When will the Conservatives start listening and do something before pushing Canadian families off this dangerous liability cliff?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is just bizarre. We brought the bill forward to raise the nuclear liability limits, and the NDP members were the ones who filibustered it and did everything they could to prevent it from passing.

When it comes to liability limits for tankers, the Commissioner of the Environment said yesterday that “Canada's amounts are absolutely in line with the international system.... In setting those international standards, Canada has been a leader”.

Electoral Boundaries

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has no idea what it is doing when it comes to protecting the environment. But it is no slouch when it comes to fraudulent calls. At first, the Conservatives claimed innocence and said they had nothing to do with these calls.

However, they were forced to admit that they were behind the calls made in Saskatchewan attacking the credibility of the electoral boundaries commission.

Pierre Poutine is back. There is nothing better than setting up the electoral boundaries to ensure a win at election time. The Conservatives have now politicized the commission's work, which is sad.

When will they start to respect Elections Canada and give it real investigative powers to combat fraud?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is well known that we do not favour the boundaries as they have been outlined. Seventy-five per cent of the submissions from Saskatchewan residents support our stance. We are moving ahead, making sure that the consultations are out there, that Saskatchewan residents continue to know the effect they will see.

In an unprecedented move, one of the three commissioners tabled a dissenting report. We look forward to having those discussions.