Debates of April 22nd, 2013

Employment

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the government has in fact, on a net basis, reduced tariffs by over half a billion dollars annually for Canadian consumers. Obviously we do not think it makes sense to give special tariff reductions to countries like China.

I always know when a question is coming from the Liberal leader because inevitably he has written to the government asking us to do exactly the opposite. He has written asking us to increase taxes on a range of consumer electronic products, including iPods. Our government will not be doing this.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, middle-class Canadian youth depend on the summer jobs program to get work experience and to help pay for school. In these tough economic times students need more help, not less.

I ask again, how is the government going to create at least as many job opportunities this summer as the program offered seven years ago, before the recession hit?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our government has made investments in a range of youth employment activities. That is one of the reasons why we see over 900,000 net new jobs created in the country since the recession ended. It is one of the best records in the developed world.

What will not help the youth, or anybody else in the country, are the proposals of the Liberal leader and the Liberal Party to increase taxes on students and other Canadians.

The Environment

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Earth Day is a good day to review the Conservatives' environmental record.

They withdrew from the Kyoto protocol, they eliminated environmental assessments, they called into question the science of climate change and they withdrew protection for our lakes and rivers. Honestly, Canadians have nothing to celebrate today.

The Minister of the Environment recently said that he is not against carbon pricing.

When will the government introduce a carbon pricing policy?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, Earth Day is a wonderfully appropriate time for the opposition to reflect on the significant investments in budget 2013 in Canada's environmental priorities. We have invested a quarter of a billion dollars in building up the Canadian weather service. We are investing in conservation of ecologically sensitive lands and fish habitat. There is renewed funding for Sustainable Development Technology Canada and new investments and tax support for clean energy generation.

I would suggest that the NDP reflect on all of this good news and more and then vote for our budget.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, he does not want to answer the question because he does not actually know the answer.

I know that the concept of sustainability is a little hard for the minister, so let us try again. Being a world leader in pulling out of climate agreements is not sustainability, dismantling environmental reviews is not sustainability, and leaving future generations to pay for today's environmental degradation is not sustainability.

When will the minister stop stalling and finally introduce effective regulations for our oil and gas sector?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, our government, as the opposition should know, is committed to developing Canada's abundant natural resources while at the same time strengthening environmental protections. Earlier today, I had the pleasure, along with Alberta's minister of the environment, to announce federal and provincial environmental monitoring data of air, water, and biodiversity on an Internet portal. This joint plan represents a scientific undertaking that is unprecedented in Canada.

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, experts agree that the Conservatives' ineffective plan to reduce greenhouse gases is not working.

On another note, the United States is considering asking Canadians to pay a fee to cross the border. This tax would increase wait times and would be detrimental to cross-border trade. Thousands of snowbirds and people who travel often or occasionally are strongly opposed to this new proposal.

Will Canadians have to pay a new travel tax on top of the new taxes in budget 2013?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that any fee on travellers crossing the Canada-U.S. border would be bad for jobs and bad for the economy. There is $1.6 billion in cross-border trade supporting jobs and growth in both countries. Canadian officials will strongly lobby against this proposal. This kind of fee had been proposed before and not enacted.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is Conservatives are preoccupied and obsessed with shipping 40,000 jobs to the U.S. down the Keystone pipeline at the expense of everything else in Washington. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce president said that making the borders thicker is exactly the wrong way to go and the Conservative government already set the example by cutting the CBSA, setting the stage for cuts from the U.S.

Why are the Conservatives once again failing to protect our interests in the U.S.? What are they doing to put a stop to this new tax on trade on Canadians?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we value our trade relations with the U.S.A. Canadian travellers contribute approximately $20 billion annually, roughly $2 billion crosses the U.S.-Canada border each year, and over eight million U.S. jobs depend on trade with Canada. As I said, our officials will very strongly lobby against this tax proposal that has been put forward. This kind of fee has been proposed before and not enacted.

National Defence

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of relations with the U.S., yesterday, the office of the Minister of National Defence said that he would possibly be open to the idea of Canada participating in ballistic missile defence. This is déjà vu. I remember a decision on this topic was made in 2005 and no one bothered to see that it was a white elephant.

In 2006, the current Prime Minister spoke about participating in such an initiative in the future, but said that he would first put it to Parliament.

Do the Conservatives plan on submitting a ballistic missile defence plan to Parliament?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as you and the member would know, Canada has declined in the past to participate in U.S.-led ballistic missile defence. The member would also be aware that we have consistently faced the challenges in a changing and volatile world with a review of the security situation. That is normally what would be expected and, of course, we are committed to ensuring the safety of Canadians at all times at home and abroad.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for years Canadians have been clear on this issue. They do not want to be part of a missile defence scheme. Yet the public safety minister is musing about doing just that, as we heard yesterday. The new proposal is an expansion of a system that the National Academy of Sciences calls, and get this, “ineffective”.

Why are Conservatives now opening the door to a potential military boondoggle yet again that would actually make the F-35s really look pale in comparison? Why not, instead, do the hard diplomatic work necessary, including with China, to reduce ballistic missile threats?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat to the hon. member that as a country, we have in the past, as he pointed out, refused and declined to take part in the U.S.-led ballistic missile defence.

The only person and the only party that appear to be musing about this are the member opposite and some journalists. In the past we have, as I said, consistently reviewed our security policies with a mind to ensuring that Canadians were protected at home and abroad.

What we see here is the thinly veiled anti-militarism so common from the NDP.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us continue to talk about some questionable Conservative decisions on defence issues.

Soldiers in Valcartier, in my riding, deserve better than the Conservatives' ineptitude. They have made cuts to medical services, and soldiers currently in Afghanistan are having to pay back danger pay. Every time a ridiculous decision is made, it takes an outcry in the media before the minister changes his mind. He does not even seem to realize what is going on in his own department.

Will the minister apologize for this mistake? Will he finally take responsibility?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the investments that the Department of National Defence has made.

In fact, I would inform the member that since 2006 the health budget for the Canadian Forces has grown by more than $130 million to its current $450 million. We have also increased the funds allocated specifically for mental health. Just last fall we added an additional $11 million.

However, what we have seen consistently from this member and from her party is opposition to any and all investments and improvements for the Canadian Armed Forces of Canada today.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the 100 soldiers and their families who have had their danger pay clawed back in Afghanistan want to know why the Minister of National Defence let this happen.

Why did he let his department go after our soldiers serving in Mazar-e-Sharif, while spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new campus for DND headquarters instead of saving money there?

How is it that the minister let this happen right under his nose?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am used to the feigned indignation from the member opposite, but maybe he missed something.

It did not happen. In fact, what we have just heard from the Prime Minister is that as a result of an administrative error, there was the intention. It came recently to my attention, and as a result we are not going to do this. This of course happened with no fault to the soldiers themselves.

We have the utmost respect for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families, particularly those who are deployed. As a result, I have directed that this clawback not occur.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this $1,600 amounts to about the cost of two nights for Bev Oda at the Savoy hotel, or about—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, order. The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

It amounts to about the cost of two nights for Bev Oda at the Savoy hotel, or one-134th of what the Conservatives spend every day on advertising.

The minister said they have changed their minds, but will he admit that they still have not changed their minds about reducing soldiers' danger pay? Why is he letting his department go after soldiers serving in Mazar-e-Sharif? Is the only hope for our soldiers to keep leaking his department's badly-thought-out decisions?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, there has not been a government in the last 50 years that has done more and dedicated more effort to improving the lives of and the support for the Canadian Armed Forces.

In fact, as I have mentioned already, as a result of this administrative error that recently came to my attention with respect to an overpayment that occurred as a result of an administrative error, we have put a stop to it.

With respect to this member, we have consistently seen his opposition. His voting record tells the story. It tells the tale of the opposition of the NDP to all of these improvements for equipment, for support and for all the good work that the Canadian Forces are doing.

Employment

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, middle-class Canadian families have always known that summer job opportunities provided financial support and work experience to young Canadians.

We know that five years ago the Conservative government wanted to cut that program out totally. We know that last year, according to StatsCan, they have hit the worst summer student numbers since StatsCan started recording, yet this year they are going to cut still more jobs and they have closed the student employment centres.

The new definition by the Conservatives for summer jobs is “Summer is here; most are gone.”