Debates of March 27th, 2013

Hydroelectric Project

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

It's the biggest city in Newfoundland, exactly. With that in mind, projects like this allow an opportunity for our folks to come back. That is a tremendous opportunity for alleviating some of the strain on families and the challenges that the strain presents.

I have always said that folks are not going to come back for one or two years, but if there is a project that is going to take five or six years to build, and then hundreds of jobs are available in each of these stations over 30, 40 or 50 years, that represents long-term, stable employment in the region and a great opportunity for folks to actually come back to the area.

As I was indicating before, with the budget bringing in implementation to develop the skilled trades that are going to be so needed for all these different projects, this is a tremendous opportunity and lays the groundwork for some of the key work that is going to have to be done in the years to come.

I want to conclude by saying that Motion No. 412 clearly sets out the many benefits of this Lower Churchill hydro development. I prefer to look at this as the glass being half full. It not only offers tremendous opportunities to the many folks who are out west, but it also offers tremendous opportunities to the untapped potential of our first nations communities to participate in this in terms of employment and working with the governments to actually benefit the first nation communities.

With projects like the Lower Churchill and other hydro developments in Manitoba, Quebec, and British Columbia, we are a strong leader in the efforts worldwide to expand the use of hydro power as a way to reduce global greenhouse emissions. In fact, as members would know, Canada is the third-largest producer of hydro power.

We have an opportunity here to benefit the Atlantic region. We have an opportunity for all this power potentially being developed and going all through New Brunswick as a corridor, right down into the U.S., which is actually now starving for renewable power.

This is a tremendous motion for this House to get behind, because it helps the whole region. It helps Canada. I really want to thank the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming for bringing this forward to the House. It was a great job. I encourage all members to support it.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as the member before me, I too am pleased to speak on the motion. I thank the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming for bringing this motion forward. The federal guarantee is important for the Atlantic region and, frankly, for Canada.

I will make a couple of points and then focus on the benefits for Nova Scotia, the province I am from.

First, we support the federal government loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill project and we have since the 2006 election. Our leader at the time, in 2011, Jack Layton, wrote to the governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia indicating he would do what he could to work with the federal government, whomever that would be at the end of the 2011 election, in order to make sure this loan guarantee went forward.

Second, the project offers extensive environmental benefits. We believe that the federal government must play a role in facilitating the transition in a way that is fair to all provinces, and I will talk a bit more about that as it relates to Nova Scotia.

The third and final message is that New Democrats believe the federal government should be taking a leadership role in supporting renewable energy and interprovincial co-operation across the board. We would like to see the federal government be more assertive and take seriously its constitutional role in developing equity and support across this country. We believe it could be doing much more, and this is an example of a type of project. Some would suggest this is a nation-building project that would benefit the Atlantic region and this is the kind of thing that should be going forward across the country.

Nova Scotians have lived for decades now with a dependence on either coal or bunker C, and they have seen world market prices continue to go through the roof. At the same time, there is environmental damage that is caused as a result of burning coal, which is surely known by all members here. The economic damage, let alone the environmental and health damage of burning coal, is something we know we have to do something about. The Province of Nova Scotia, along with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, has reached an agreement which goes a considerable distance to accomplishing this.

Back in April 2010, the Government of Nova Scotia released the renewable electricity plan. In addition to the commitment of having renewables provide 25% of all electricity by 2015, the plan specified a new goal of 40% renewable electricity by 2020.

At that time, the government of the day saw three ways to do that: one was with more intermittent sources, such as wind, complemented by natural gas; two was hydroelectric energy from Lower Churchill; and three was more clean energy imported by neighbouring provinces.

A number of months later, the Province of Nova Scotia signed an agreement, along with Emera Energy and Alcor Energy, and with the involvement of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In return for bearing 20% of the cost of building the hydro facility and associated transmission facilities between Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia ratepayers would receive 20% of the energy from Muskrat Falls for 35 years. This would be supplemented by what they referred to as a “supplemental block”, which would provide another proportion of energy for the first five years of the agreement.

In addition to the base and supplemental blocks, Nova Scotia Power would be able to purchase additional hydroelectric energy from Alcor at market rates.

It is important to recognize not only is this meant to replace or greatly lessen the reliance on hydrocarbon-producing coal-burning plants, but it would also establish a dependable price that Nova Scotians have not seen for a period of 35 years. I just heard Liberal Party representatives say that ratepayers are going to be paying the cost, but ratepayers are paying the cost right now of a dependency on coal and bunker C. They are paying it right up the nose and they are paying it every day on their bills.

This was a courageous decision by the government of Nova Scotia, along with the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to begin to actually do something about establishing some stability in rates for ratepayers, while at the same time to deal, and again in a courageous fashion, with environmental and health concerns by the burning and production carbon.

There continues to be naysayers in the province of Nova Scotia and across the country. This deal has been supported by the federal government. It was the right decision to make for not only taxpayers in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador but for all Canadians.

Provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia need to make strides to end their dependence on coal-burning power plants. The provinces do not seem to recognize the fact that the world has a serious climate change problem and Canada has to do its part. One way for Canada to do its part is to deal with how it gets its electricity. For Canada's economy, for the economy of the Atlantic region, it just simply makes sense.

Right now Nova Scotia is at the end of the power grid, or at the end of the line. We can only receive power from one end, and there have been problems in negotiating prices both on the world market and with our neighbours because of that dependence. Now we are going to be in the middle of the loop, between Newfoundland and Labrador, between Muskrat Falls and Quebec. We are going to ensure that we negotiate the best deal for Nova Scotia ratepayers. We are going to continue to deal with our neighbours in Atlantic Canada. We are going to continue to deal with Quebec. Nova Scotia buys power from Hydro-Québec and it will continue to do that. It is another source within a range of sources.

However, this guarantee allows us to ultimately stand up for ourselves, to develop a source of power generation in Atlantic Canada that benefits Atlantic Canadians. It allows us to stand on our own two feet, to continue to develop our economies and contribute to the country as Canadians would expect us to do.

I want to again thank the member opposite for bringing this important motion forward.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to rise in the House to speak to this motion. Just like my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, I have to wonder why we absolutely had to debate this motion now, given that the government has already announced its decision to extend a loan guarantee to the Muskrat Falls project in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have to wonder about that.

Our position on this issue has been known for a long time. We stated it during the campaign. Our leader at the time, Jack Layton, publicly voiced our support for loan guarantees, under certain conditions, one of which being that such guarantees be extended equally to all provinces for the purpose of promoting renewable energy.

I would like to talk about what the Newfoundland and Labrador agreement is not. The agreement is not a loan from the federal government. The agreement is not a subsidy from the federal government for Newfoundland and Labrador. The agreement is not funding for the project. It is a loan guarantee. Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, which is a partner in the agreement, will finance the hydroelectric project. The federal government will simply provide a loan guarantee, which is similar to what happens when we apply to a bank for a loan and ask another party to provide a guarantee for that loan. That is all that will result from the federal government's announcement.

We have to be clear that the federal government is not committing any funds. Taxpayers' money will not go to this project unless—and this is not very likely—the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador or Nalcor Energy, a crown corporation and owner of the Newfoundland public electricity company, goes bankrupt. There is virtually no likelihood of that happening. In that sense, there is virtually no risk to the federal government.

The Muskrat Falls project is a hydroelectric project on the Lower Churchill River. The project will generate an estimated 824 MW of electricity. It is not a huge project compared to some in Quebec, such as the mega projects we have become accustomed to seeing with Hydro-Québec. This is the first phase of the project, and it will be followed by phase 2 on Gull Island. The two projects combined will generate 3,074 MW of electricity.

Once again, it is an important project that will help meet the needs of the Atlantic provinces, even though it is not anywhere near the size of the projects we are used to seeing from Hydro-Québec. We consider this to be an important project for Newfoundland and Labrador and for Nova Scotia, the two provinces party to the agreement.

I should note that energy is presently being produced in Labrador. This will be the first time that energy produced in Labrador is transmitted to the island of Newfoundland, which presently receives no hydroelectricity from outside the island. It is important that we understand this in order to realize the impact that the project could have on the Atlantic provinces, especially Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

The project would create a maritime link to the island of Newfoundland and then a maritime link between the island of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. At that point, if Nova Scotia thinks it is necessary, it would have the opportunity to enter into an agreement with New Brunswick, as well as opportunities for export to the United States.

However, we must be careful. Not all the electricity that is produced at Muskrat Falls or eventually at Gull Island will go to the United States. Right now, under the existing agreement, 60% of the electricity produced at Muskrat Falls and Gull Island will be used by either Newfoundland or Nova Scotia. That is a minimum because the percentage will increase over time since there will be greater domestic demand. This will mean that there will be less electricity available for export, possibly to the United States. One thing is certain: by virtue of the agreement, Nova Scotia will always have 20% of the hydroelectric production.

What reasons are there to support this project other than the fact that it is beneficial for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia? There are also environmental reasons. This project will make it possible to decrease dependence, particularly Nova Scotia's dependence, on coal-fired plants, which emit a lot of greenhouse gases. This will make it possible to eliminate or greatly reduce the production of four coal-fired plants in Nova Scotia.

I am talking about the plants in Lingan, Point Aconi, Point Tupper and Trenton. There is also a plant in Tufts Cove that generates electricity using oil and natural gas. The project would also make it possible to eliminate the Holyrood oil-burning power plant in Newfoundland. This project therefore has many environmental benefits.

Once these plants have closed, it is estimated that the project will decrease these provinces' greenhouse gas emissions by 16 megatonnes a year. By way of comparison, that is equivalent to 3.2 million cars on the road.

Most of the parties in the House are in favour of reducing greenhouse gases in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, which are already being felt. We have to put words into action. We have talked a great deal about the need to eliminate greenhouse gases, but now we need to support measures that go in that direction. Hydroelectric plants go in that direction, particularly the one in Muskrat Falls, which is the subject of the hon. member's motion. That is why we will support this motion.

I would now like to talk about the misinformation surrounding this project. The federal government is interfering in a provincial jurisdiction. I do not see any interference in the Muskrat Falls project or in the loan guarantee that the government is giving Newfoundland for that project. Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia will always own these projects. Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia will manage the production and transmission of hydroelectric power. The federal government has no control over the project itself or how it is managed. All it is doing is offering a loan guarantee.

I am truly surprised to hear this argument. I am also surprised to hear that it is not necessarily the best project available and that the government should not give the loan guarantee. There are still debates about this in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some people think that the loan guarantee should not be given.

The decision has been made. The two provinces conducted environmental studies and studies to find better alternatives to the proposed measures, to the construction of Muskrat Falls and the power transmission. The provinces determined that it was the project that best met their needs and their objectives. Nova Scotia has significant targets in terms of reducing greenhouse gases. It is not up to the federal government to decide what project is the best for the provinces. The work has already been done.

The second element directly affects Quebec, and members from Quebec talk about it often. I am talking about competition or the argument that Hydro-Québec would have competition. As I said, Hydro-Québec has done a great job and truly built the Quebec we have today. Every Quebecker is grateful for the role that Hydro-Québec played in the province's economic development. There will be no competition, because Hydro-Québec has no connection to Newfoundland. There will be no competition because Quebec does not do business with Nova Scotia. There will be no competition—or there will be very little—with regard to exporting electricity, because the project will export no more than 300 megawatts of electricity from Muskrat Falls to the United States. Hydro-Québec exports 27,000 megawatts a year. Competition cannot be the only reason to oppose this bill, which will have a positive impact on the environment.

Jack Layton supported this project. The NDP included it in its 2011 election platform, and we did not shy away from that. For once, we are proudly supporting a Conservative government decision, namely a loan guarantee for a project that will clearly be managed by Newfoundland and Labrador, in partnership with Nova Scotia.

I regret not having the opportunity to respond to my colleagues' questions. I know that that is not the tradition for private members' bills, but I was pleased to speak to this very important issue.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming. My NDP colleagues and I support this motion.

The environment is a cause that is important to me. I believe it is important to ensure that families and children in our country can live in a healthy and sustainable environment.

Before being elected to the House, I was involved in environmental causes in a number of capacities. I was on the board of directors of the Conseil du bassin versant de Vaudreuil—Soulanges. I also worked as an environmental researcher and as a consultant in ecological development.

I am taking the time to emphasize my commitment to the environment because I think it is important to ensure that the federal government assumes its responsibility to protect the environment by actively encouraging the development of clean energy and a green economy.

By committing to invest in green energy development, the federal government would be contributing to the fight against climate change, while stimulating the economy and cutting energy costs for Canadian families. That is exactly what the NDP wants for Canada. It wants the federal government to make significant investments in green energy development across Canada. We are talking about the future of our environment and our economy.

We need to develop the green energy sector. I think it is particularly important to focus on the state of this sector and the government's investments in it.

The situation is not very impressive. According to a report published by Pew Charitable Trusts, an American non-profit, non-governmental organization, green energy accounted for only 4.3% of Canada's energy production capacity in 2009. Canada ranked 11th, followed by Indonesia, China, the United States and Mexico. We are light years behind countries like Germany and Spain, whose green energy production capacity is close to 30% of their overall energy capacity.

According to another Pew report, the situation is similar for investments in green energy. Canada ranked 11th among G20 countries in 2011. While China and the United States did not have very good records with respect to their capacity to produce clean energy in 2009, these two countries were leading the pack with their investments in developing green energy in 2011.

From 2009 to 2011, the United States almost doubled its overall green energy production capacity from 53.6 gigawatts to 93 gigawatts, and China nearly tripled its capacity from 52.5 gigawatts to 133 gigawatts. Canada has only increased its green energy production capacity by 2 gigawatts over the same period. In short, not only are we lagging behind, but we are being overtaken.

It is not just the countries at the back of the pack that are overtaking us when it comes to green energy investment in recent years. Germany, Spain, India, the United Kingdom and Brazil all invested more than Canada in 2011. All these countries already had a green energy production capacity higher than Canada's.

Now is not the time for talk, but rather for action. The government must do more than move motions, as commendable as they may be. It must commit to getting Canada back into the global green energy race.

Getting back into the green energy race is not a matter of national pride or of political games; it is a matter of ensuring our energy security, of protecting our environment and of stimulating the economic growth of Canada. As stated in a Pembina Institute report published a few months ago, the current government's failure to provide leadership in the green energy sector is undermining this country's competitiveness on the world market.

Too often, the NDP is wrongfully accused by the Conservatives of being against job creation or being against developing our economy. I think the case of the green energy sector shows exactly the opposite. It shows that we at the NDP understand how the economy works. We understand how to create economic growth. We understand that Canadians want good sustainable jobs. We know that part of the solution is to invest in the green energy sector to give our clean technology companies the support that they need. We also understand that if the government does not act now, no one will, and Canada will keep falling behind.

Although my party and I support the motion, I think that it is slightly ironic for the Conservative government to pat itself on the back in matters of clean energy, while only last year it cancelled the $400 million ecoEnergy retrofit program ahead of schedule and did not renew funding for Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Even in this budget, it only allocated $1 million to SDTC this year. All the funding for that program is years down the line, when the Conservatives might not even be in power.

I do not wish to sound too cynical about the Conservative motion, but I think that it is not an exaggeration to state that the current Conservative government and its Liberal predecessors have overlooked the importance of a green transition for this country's economy and environment.

Nonetheless, I will support the motion. I will support the motion because I think that Canada needs to invest in and develop our clean and renewable energy sector. While other G20 countries are going ahead with massive investments, we are falling behind. Countries such as China and the United States, which are not role models in matters of clean energy, are passing us in terms of stimulus funding for clean energy. We need to catch up and become leaders instead of laggards.

Most of all, I hope the government will walk the walk in matters of clean energy. I hope that the Canadian government will develop a clear and effective strategy of investment in clean energy. I hope that the Conservative government decision to agree to a loan guarantee on the lower Churchill hydroelectric project is more than just a political manoeuvre, because developing a vibrant clean energy sector in Canada is no political game. Developing clean energy would grow the Canadian economy and create good, lasting jobs.

To conclude, I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the House do understand, as the NDP does, that Canada can become a global leader in renewable energy and that it is the role of the government to develop renewable energy to create economic growth and jobs, while building a sustainable economy that decreases our carbon footprint for generations to come.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate with his five-minute right of reply, the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise as the sponsor of Motion No. 412 and I am pleased with the consensus that has arrived.

I will just give a little background. I was involved in alternative energy for about 10 years before being elected as a parliamentarian. I am currently chair of the cleantech caucus. I have always had a huge interest in renewable energy and cleantech projects. That is what motivated me to get involved in the motion.

I am particularly proud of our government assisting in this initiative. Obviously, this would create jobs, improve our economy and ensure long-term prosperity. It would clean up the environment with one of the largest renewable energy projects in Canada's history. It would eliminate fossil fuel plants in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Clearly, it would save some 4.5 million tonnes of GHG.

I would be remiss if I did not extend my appreciation to the former, and I would hope soon-to-be future, member for Labrador who has been of tremendous help to me in this endeavour and of valuable assistance with this project. I thank him for his hard work in making this project a reality and look forward to when he can return and offer even more of the kind of leadership he has given his constituents over the last two years. No doubt, his efforts have made, and will make, a distinct difference to the people of Atlantic Canada and the people of Labrador.

With this future in mind and with the many benefits the project would bring to Canadians, I strongly support private member's Motion No. 412 and our government's commitment to these projects. I look forward to the day when the ribbon is cut at the Muskrat Falls hydro power generating station and I look forward to all members of the House supporting Motion No. 412.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for debate has expired. The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 17, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Regional Economic Development

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative's economic plan has failed many Canadians. It has especially failed northwestern Ontario and will continue to fail our region under the 2013 budget. They have already handed us the largest trade deficit in Canadian history, the largest budget deficit in Canadian history and stalled unemployment. Now the Communist Chinese are handed control of our key resources, science is sabotaged and environmental controls are scrapped. It is a plan where ideology kills evidence and science.

The Conservatives have spent tens of millions of tax dollars advertising the plan to the very taxpayers who pay for the ads. However, the ads do not mention the cuts to critical services across Canada, particularly in northwestern Ontario. They are cuts like closing the Thunder Bay citizenship and immigration office, and the upcoming closure of the Thunder Bay Marine Communication and Traffic Services Centre after 105 years of life-saving service. Now calls will be routed over 1,000 kms away, to a call centre in southern Ontario.

The Thunder Bay Veterans Affairs Canada office is also closing. It served RCMP officers, 500 senior veterans and 600 younger veterans. Including family members, the Thunder Bay office has served about 3,000 people, all the way from the Manitoba border to past Sault Ste. Marie. A toll-free number, or referring veterans to a website, is not the service that those who have served our country deserve.

There have been 25 positions that were lost at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada in Thunder Bay, which will further devastate EI recipients. The Canada Revenue Agency in Thunder Bay has closed its service counter. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has lost fisheries biologists, which will impact the protection of fish and their habitat. This is on top of the closure of the Experimental Lakes Area. Thunder Bay is losing 75 people at the Canadian Grain Commission. Having no more research and no more inward inspections will damage Canada's reputation.

Service Canada in my riding has seen over 20 jobs lost, impacting front-line service delivery to constituents. In total, over 130 people have been axed so far in Thunder Bay, and that number will soon grow to over 300 this year.

Let us turn to the problems of the budget that was tabled just a few days ago. There are a lot. There is a tax hike on credit unions. There are no substantial new tax reductions for small business, just a job-killing hike in payroll taxes, EI premiums. By contrast, the United Kingdom just reduced those to zero for small businesses, to stimulate jobs.

There is nothing in the budget to end the $1.3 billion in taxpayer subsidies for the greedy and profitable oil and gas sector and still no price on carbon. There are no new doctors and nurses in rural areas. The Conservatives are recycling old money for youth unemployment, when 13% of youth under 29 years of age are unemployed. There are no rules on exorbitant bank and credit card charges on consumers and small businesses, just voluntary codes. There is nothing to deal with the pensions crisis, just more talk. There is nothing but consultations on first nations education, when aboriginal students are funded at only half the level as other students in Ontario.

No budget is all bad or good; there are things in this one that I can support. However, for a change, will the Conservatives be open to considering some amendments to improve the budget this time?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad for this opportunity to address the member's question and to once again highlight the fine work our Conservative government has done and continues to do in northern Ontario.

We recognize the importance of having the tools in place to address the economic development needs of local communities and businesses. We are focused on investing in initiatives that build on regional strengths and capitalize on opportunities to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

I am proud to report that our Conservative government, through FedNor, has invested more than $346 million toward more than 1,500 projects in northern Ontario, and we do not have to look very far to see the results of our investments.

In the city of Elliot Lake, the impact of the Algo Centre Mall collapse last year was deeply felt by the entire community, including local businesses. It forced the relocation of 30 businesses and affected more than 195 jobs. The need for infrastructure investment in this community was real and urgent. I am very proud of our government's response.

With an investment of $1 million, we helped the community to prepare and service a seven-acre parcel of land that will be the site of a new 80,000-square-foot retail centre. This investment, expected to attract approximately $10 million in additional private sector funding to the region, makes good economic sense. It also serves as one example to highlight our government's ongoing commitment to help communities build the infrastructure they need to grow their economy and create jobs.

Our Conservative government is committed to supporting economic growth and job creation in northern Ontario, and we will continue to do this through our economic action plan and through the efforts of organizations like FedNor.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore another part of the government's plan that has real effect on the economy of Canada and northwestern Ontario, and that is its wilful ignorance, even outright hostility, to facts or science that contradicts its ideological beliefs.

One example is its obsession with closing the Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario at a cost of tens of millions in lost research and billions in future environmental and health impacts that could have been prevented.

Another example just happened yesterday when the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, itself axed by the government, revealed that the government was attempting to bury a lot of its valuable information.

Erasing inconvenient facts and muzzling scientists and policy experts undermines our ability to weigh evidence and to make good policy decisions.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that Canada's vast mineral wealth be developed as a vital part of our national economy. I want to highlight the Ring of Fire, which will be at the forefront of a mining renaissance in our country.

The Ring of Fire has the potential to create over 5,000 direct and indirect jobs in northern Ontario alone, plus significant spinoff benefits throughout the province. That is why our economic action plan 2013 and our Harper government has committed to $4.4 million over three years for initiatives like a Ring of Fire capacity-building initiative through FedNor.

Clearly, we are committed to the people of northern Ontario.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would remind all hon. members not to use the name of any members, including the Prime Minister, when speaking in the chamber.

The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

Firearms Registry

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity today to come back to the important matter of controlling the movement and ownership of firearms. Such gun control is necessary.

The government decided to destroy the registry, a tool that helps save lives, a tool with a proven track record. Despite six unanimous motions at the National Assembly calling on the government to give up its ideological crusade against this registry that was heavily used by police forces, the government dug in its heels.

Quebeckers know that the registry saves lives. Community organizations that often see how useful and effective this tool is also ask that access to this type of registry be maintained. When the members of Quebec's National Assembly saw how inflexible the federal government was about this, they unanimously asked that Quebec's portion of the data contained in the now dismantled registry be transferred to the province.

In light of the government's determination and rush to destroy not only the registry, but all the data it contained, including information on firearms owners in Quebec, the Government of Quebec had no choice but to appeal to the courts to assert its rights. Quebec wants to keep data from the registry about Quebec. The request is clear, simple and legitimate.

On September 12, 2012, the Government of Quebec obtained an injunction preventing the Quebec data in the gun registry from being destroyed. Here is an excerpt from that ruling:

Although the firearms registry was established pursuant to the federal government’s criminal law power, it created a partnership with Quebec, particularly with regard to the Registry’s data. The principles of constitutional interpretation do not allow a level of government, in the very specific and unique context of this case, to enact a legislative provision whose main purpose is to prevent other levels of government from using the fruits of this partnership in the exercise of their legislative powers.

The legal battle continues. Instead of acquiescing to Quebec's request and transferring the data, the federal government is digging in its heels and continuing to demonstrate a lack of openness, respect and understanding in the face of this request that is so important to Quebeckers. It is even appealing the injunction, at a significant cost to taxpayers.

Quebec's public safety minister, Stéphane Bergeron, decided to move forward and stop waiting. In February, he introduced bill 20, which aims to create a Quebec gun registry. This bill will prevent a legal vacuum and will allow for data that were previously contained in the federal registry to be properly moved to the Quebec registry.

Will the government listen to Quebec's request and agree to hand the data over to Quebec?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to answer the member's question, and to once again highlight our government's commitment to law-abiding long-gun owners in Canada.

For far too long, law-abiding gun owners in Canada who were licensed to own firearms and use firearms for legitimate purposes throughout the country in rural areas, including in rural areas of Quebec, have been targeted. They were targeted by a wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

The long-gun registry cost $2 billion to set up, as reported by the CBC. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, nor is there any testimony from front-line police officers, that the long-gun registry has or had any ability to stop any kind of crime, much less violent gun crime. There are a number of reasons for that. Primarily, the data contained in the database of the long-gun registry was completely inaccurate. Only half of the firearms in Canada were actually in the database of the long-gun registry, because not every long gun was registered.

Therefore, police officers could not rely on the data. They testified numerous times in committee meetings regarding the bill that the government and I introduced to end the long-gun registry. I was at every committee meeting and I heard from front-line officers over and over again who said they could never count on the data. If they went on a call and the data said there were no firearms there, they knew they had to make sure to check, because many times the data was inaccurate.

We had a commitment that we made to the Canadian people and to long gun owners in Canada. We fulfilled that commitment. We scrapped the long-gun registry and we destroyed the data.

Certainly, if Quebec wants to set up its own gun registry, it is free to do that. However, I would suggest that in this time of the fiscal restraint it is going to cost millions of dollars, if not billions, to do so. It will do nothing to stop violent crime. It does nothing to end suicide, and it does not stop violence.

The measure we have in place with regard to gun control in Canada is the licensing mechanism. It may be that my hon. colleague does not understand the difference. Licensing means individuals go through a background check and a mental health check. Many times their spouses are consulted to see if they can legitimately, legally and safely own a firearm. That is where we have the ability to stop people from getting guns.

The majority of people who get guns illegally are doing so because they are involved in gangs, drugs and organized crime. That is where we have introduced legislation to get tough on organized crime and introduce mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. Unfortunately, the member and his party do not support any of those measures.

We will continue to stand up for law-abiding gun owners. There is only one party in the House that consistently stands up for long gun owners, because we know the NDP would reintroduce the long-gun registry, and that is the Conservative Party.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is amusing to see the Conservatives talk about a costly and ineffective registry when the registry produced results. There were organizations that could very simply show the impact of adopting the registry.

Yes, there are costs involved. Speaking of costs, do we need to remind the government that Quebeckers helped pay to set it up? Part of the registry and the data it contained must be returned to Quebec, since Quebec requested it.

We can see that the Conservatives have no understanding of the issue of transferring the data. The parliamentary secretary talks about a lack of understanding. I fully understand the mechanisms, since I have hunting and gun licences.

I do not think that, for the government, that should be a barrier to transferring the data to Quebec.

The government must transfer the data.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member does understand the licensing process, and I appreciate his comments on that.

I would challenge him to bring any evidence forward that shows the registry portion of the firearms control program that was previously established in Canada has or had any effect on stopping one single crime.

The logic behind thinking that we can somehow stop a crime if we count the guns of law-abiding gun owners is completely flawed. It is impossible. That is why we committed to ending the long-gun registry, and we had the support of the Canadian people. We destroyed the data outside of Quebec. If Quebec wants to set up its own registry, it is absolutely free to do so, but we will not be supporting it.

Aerospace Industry

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Last spring and summer, I had some very interesting meetings with various stakeholders in the aerospace industry. They told me that the Canadian aerospace industry is a successful sector that provides 66,000 very good jobs in Canada.

Furthermore, this sector generates revenues of more than $22 billion. These people also told me that the aerospace industry is at a crossroads. The competition is getting fiercer and, unfortunately, Canada is losing ground as the Conservative government stands idly by. They also told me that they could not understand why the government purchases planes and helicopters from other countries.

When the Deloitte & Touche report gave federal aerospace programs a D, the Minister of Industry ordered Mr. Emerson to review the aerospace industry. His report provided 17 recommendations for the aeronautics industry and eight recommendations for the space program. The Jenkins report on military procurement was released after that.

The Minister of Industry said that these reports would not collect dust and that the government would take action. We have been waiting for the government to take meaningful action since December. The Conservatives will of course tell us that this is covered in the 2013 budget, but everyone knows that the budget is an empty shell and there is no long-term vision. What the aerospace industry needs is a long-term commitment from the government as well as long-term predictable programs.

The industry does not look at the future in blocks of four-year terms between elections. The industry plans over the course of 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. That is planning for the future. What it would like to see is a clear commitment from the government about the 17 recommendations in this report that were made very carefully in response to consultations with players in the aerospace industry. We are still waiting.

Why is it that the government has not yet recognized that the aerospace industry is a strategic sector for our economy and that it creates very high-quality jobs, which add significant value to the manufacturing sector, export products and so on? How is it that this government is not giving a clear indication to the aerospace industry that it is truly committed to supporting the sector, not just until 2015, but beyond 2015, with a long-term vision?

There is also the issue of space, but I will stick to the aerospace industry. We are still waiting for a clear signal proving that the government recognizes this strategic and important sector of our economy.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to respond to my hon. colleague's question regarding our government's support for the aerospace industry.

Canada's aerospace industry is a world leader. Our aerospace productivity growth outpaced the rest of the G7 over the last 10 years, and the industry as a whole has an enviable reputation, with acknowledged leadership in business and regional aircraft, small gas turbine engines, flight simulators, civil helicopters, aircraft landing gear and environmental control systems.

The industry contributes over $11 billion to the economy as well as another $14 billion from indirect and induced work. Its cutting-edge work supports 160,000 Canadian jobs.

Our government puts a high priority on the aerospace sector. Just last week, economic action plan 2013 provided close to $1 billion for the strategic aerospace and defence initiative and established a new aerospace technology demonstration program. The government is also committed to consulting stakeholders on the establishment of a national aerospace research and technology network.

Our government is continuing to study the report's findings and will take action over the coming year to improve the focus and coordination of programs and practices relevant to the aerospace and space industries.

These initiatives are in addition to broader measures outlined in Canada's economic action plan 2013 that are helping manufacturers and businesses across Canada succeed in the global economy, including tax relief for new manufacturing machinery and equipment, support for skills development and training, and investment in leading-edge research infrastructure, to name just a few.

These investments benefit the whole economy, including the aerospace industry, which is a Canadian manufacturing and research and development leader. We are very proud to continue the support that we have been giving to our aerospace sector.