Debates of Sept. 24th, 2014

Aboriginal Affairs

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, having gone out and spoken to aboriginal families across the country, I can say that what they have asked for is our action plan. As opposed to waiting like the NDP would like to, they would like action and they would like it now. They want to be supported. They want prevention programs. They want to make sure they are protected. These have been victims of domestic violence, and I must say I commend the RCMP, because 90% of these crimes have been solved. We are focused on the others. However, let us be clear: we are taking action now for these families and victims of crime as opposed to what the NDP wants to do, which is just sit and watch the world go by.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's so-called action plan cannot be trusted. We are talking about 1,200 missing and murdered aboriginal women, and the problem continues. This evening, my colleagues opposite will have the opportunity to take meaningful action in memory of these women who were victims of violence.

They can vote against a report that symbolizes 30 years of indifference and 30 years of inaction, and they can finally acknowledge the need for a national public inquiry. Will they take action?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I guess what I would like to ask the NDP is to support our concrete plan to make sure that we are getting action for these victims of crime. This is very clear. Aboriginal women and aboriginal families have asked us and compelled us to move forward with this. We are acting now, and I ask the NDP to support it, but I do not expect that, because New Democrats have opposed every initiative we have put forward. Whether it be shelters for aboriginal women on reserve or whether it be matrimonial property rights, they vote against these things. Let us be clear. We are about action, making sure these families and victims of crime are supported now.

The Environment

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec Superior Court halted exploratory drilling in Cacouna, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the one responsible for the whole mess. She refused to provide the Quebec environment minister with a scientific assessment of the impact this drilling would have on the health of belugas, an iconic species that is threatened.

When will the Conservatives stop pitting environmental protection against economic development, to the detriment of both the environment and the economy?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify something. The object of yesterday's ruling was a review and authorization undertaken by the Quebec provincial government under provincial laws in Quebec.

DFO conducted its own review of TransCanada's work and improved it, based on strict conditions. I remain confident in the diligence and the expertise of DFO scientists, and as this is a legal matter, I have nothing more to add.

Employment Insurance

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are clearly out of ideas on the economy, and their fiscal incompetence is putting middle-class jobs and families at risk. The Conservative EI scheme would hurt small businesses by incentivizing the firing of people, rather than encouraging job creation. However, the Liberal EI premium exemption would help create jobs and encourage growth in Canada's economy.

When are the Conservatives going to abandon their narrow interests and adopt the Liberal plan, which is great for Canada?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader's hastily conceived back-of-the-envelope mishmash of ideas would do the very thing he indirectly and incorrectly identifies is the problem with our plan. It would encourage firing workers, especially temporary or seasonal workers. In contrast, our plan would generate 25,000 jobs and provide $550 million to the small business sector, which is the generator of employment in this country.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal plan to provide an EI break for new hires is endorsed by Canadian job creators.

Restaurants Canada says, “This Liberal proposal for an EI exemption for new hires would help restaurants create jobs”. Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters says, “Liberal plan would create jobs”. CFIB says, “Love the [Liberal] plan.... Lots of job potential”. They all agree that the Liberal plan would help create jobs and growth.

Will the Conservatives listen to Canadian business and adopt the Liberal plan for jobs and growth?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the CFIB was very clear. Our plan would create 25,000 person-years. This is extremely advantageous for the economy, for the generation of employment in this country. In contrast, the Liberal plan would encourage the firing of seasonal and temporary workers, precisely the opposite of what we want to achieve.

Ours is a plan that would generate employment and economic growth. We are onside for an economic surplus, which would provide advantages to all Canadians.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2008, the Conservatives decided to cancel the contract to replace the Royal Canadian Navy's supply ships.

Because of these delays, in a few months the navy will find itself without any joint supply ships and may have to stay in port.

Caught off guard, the Conservatives are now going to buy ships that are at the end of their lifespan from the American military. Well done.

Can the Minister of National Defence tell us how much the Conservatives' mismanagement of the supply ships is going to cost Canadians?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, our government is delivering equipment to the Royal Canadian Navy by investing $4 billion to modernize the Halifax-class frigates and $36.6 billion in the national shipbuilding procurement strategy. The joint supply ship project will deliver two ships and will replace the navy's Protecteur-class vessels that are now more than 40 years old and nearing the end of their service lives. The navy is currently investigating all options to address the immediate impact of retiring these two vessels.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is happening here. Conservative mismanagement has left our navy without critical resupply capabilities. The government knew full well that these ships in service since the 1960s needed urgent replacement, yet it cancelled the joint support ship contract in 2008. These ships would be in the water now.

Why has the navy been left to scramble, and what will this new gambit of buying aging ships from the United States cost Canadians?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Navy, as I already said, is currently undertaking the most comprehensive fleet modernization and renewal in peacetime history. This includes the modernization of 12 Halifax-class frigates, seven of which are already completed with their refits.

As always, we are going to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the tools and the equipment to get the job done.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives like to go hard on these great big announcements, but they are so soft on the real follow-through.

Let us look at the government's sanctions against Russia, because they are full of loopholes. On top of refusing to sanction key business players close to President Putin, it turns out that Canadian sanctions are three times less likely to penalize Russian oil companies as sanctions from the United States.

Will the minister please explain how letting Russian oil companies off the hook helps Ukraine?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the strongest sanctions against the Russian regime. Let me quote the figures exactly. Canada has approximately 171 sanctions against the Russians. In contrast, the U.S. has only 107 and the European Union 146.

This government is leading the sanctions against Russia. She should check her facts.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not about the number of sanctions but their targets.

According to The Canadian Press, the sanctions imposed on Russia very carefully avoid targeting oil and gas companies. The United States is targeting 13 oil companies, while the Conservative sanctions target only five. It is strange. The four largest companies are completely immune.

What is the Conservatives' priority? Is it to support the people of Ukraine or to protect the economic interests of oil companies?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have listened to the President of Ukraine when he said that Canada is one of the best friends that Ukraine has ever had. That should answer her question in reference to Canada's very strong support for the Ukrainian people, including their government.

We will continue, as we have said, to look at this situation, and we will continue to be a strong supporter of Ukraine in its fight for freedom from Russia.

Public Safety

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have seen atrocity after atrocity committed by the barbaric group ISIL. Western journalists have been executed in cold blood, residents of Iraq and Syria have been brutalized, and Canadians have been singled out as a target. This is all in the name of radical Islamic terrorism. While our Conservative government has created new tools for protecting national security, the Liberal leader has mused that taking a passport away from a radical extremist is an affront to Canadian values.

Can the Minister of Public Safety update the House on what our government is doing to protect Canadians from the threat of ISIL?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Don Valley West is right. The Islamic State is a threat to Canadians and our way of life. That is why our government listed this barbaric group as a terrorist organization today.

The Islamic State is a serious threat to our country and our way of life. That is why, today, the government added this terrorist entity, whose actions are shameful and barbaric, to Canada's list of terrorist groups.

Let us be clear. Individuals who engage in acts of terrorism are not worthy of carrying a Canadian passport.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives have proven that they are unwilling to defend grain producers. When the pressure was on, the Minister of Agriculture stood up in the House, before committee and as part of the order in council, and said that we were going to fine those rail companies $100,000 a day.

Here is today's reality. The Minister of Transport says no, hang on, it is only going to be $100,000 a week. So much for tough talk.

I have a simple question for the minister. Why did he back down and when will he finally stand up for farmers?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have missed it, but in my opinion, this is the best agriculture minister that we have seen. He has stood up, all the time, for grain farmers. He has consistently acted to ensure that grain farmers are protected. CN has not hit its levels. We will enforce. It is in violation, and we will continue to make sure that we protect, through the Minister of Agriculture, grain farmers in Canada.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that last spring, the Ministers of Transport and Agriculture crossed the country talking tough, announcing fines of $100,000 a day, but when it came to cracking down on rail companies that failed to deliver Canadian grain, Conservatives just rolled over.

Now we have learned that the actual fines are only a fraction of that amount. Prairie farmers are saying that this is just par for the course; the intervention was too little, too late.

Can the minister tell our farmers why the minimal penalties?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, again I want to personally thank the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for his great work on the file, to ensure that we are working together as a government on this matter.

We should also talk to the people out there who are the ones who are the beneficiaries of Bill C-30.

Brett Halstead, president of the Canadian Canola Growers Association stated:

This action demonstrates that Government is listening to farmers' concerns. We look forward to working with the Government and other industry stakeholders.

Quite frankly, the opposition is not in the game on this one. The government is the one that is dealing with this on a daily basis and is out front through the minister.

The Environment

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a Superior Court judge had to suspend drilling off the coast of Cacouna.

In her decision, she criticized Quebec, which never received the scientific opinions that were requested from Fisheries and Oceans Canada's science branch. The scientists' inability to speak up resulted in the premature commencement of an oil company's operations with complete disregard for our environmental obligations.

Contrary to what the minister said, they are drilling in beluga habitat without knowing what beluga experts think of the undertaking.

Will the minister finally let the experts speak and will she provide the scientific opinions? This whole screw-up happened because of how her department is run. They are not fooling anyone.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again. The object of yesterday's ruling was a review of a Quebec provincial government law. I cannot speak for the Province of Quebec, but what I can say is that DFO conducted its own review of TransCanada's work and approved it based on strict conditions. The decision was based on science, carried out with the expertise of DFO scientists.

I find it ironic that the New Democrats claim to be on the side of science and then turn around and question our scientists' competence when it suits their politics.