Andrew Saxton

[September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the question from the hon. member opposite concerning the federal government presence in Gatineau. There appears to be some confusion about what the ratio of 75:25 refers to. The 75:25 ratio refers to the ratio of accommodation space in Ottawa versus Gatineau.

The federal government is doing everything it can to achieve an office space ratio of 75:25 in the national capital region. In recent years, the office space ratio for the PWGSC portfolio has been 77:23.

In September 2006, we announced an action plan to meet the target by acquiring four buildings in Gatineau. We intend to meet our office space ratio target of 75:25 by 2012-13.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring a real and viable presence for the federal public service in Gatineau. However, I have to wonder if the member opposite has a real and viable presence in that city himself.

The hon. member complains that there are 27 research centres in Ottawa and none in Gatineau. That is simply not true. The fact is there are two federal government science facilities in Gatineau, both operated by Library and Archives Canada: one is the Preservation Centre and the other is the Archival Processing Centre. These are not trivial institutions. I would say they are quite central to preserving the past and future of Canada's historical legacy. I suggest the hon. member drive by these facilities that he claims do not exist and get to know the city he represents.

Let me also remind the hon. member that while Treasury Board is the employer of the core public administration, each federal department or agency is responsible for shaping its own workforce.

That said, the distribution of federal employees between the two cities is more or less equivalent to the 75:25 office space ratio.

I would also remind the hon. member that Quebec means all regions of Quebec and that the Minister of Public Works is analyzing the presence of the federal government not only throughout Quebec, but in all provinces with an eye on fairness.

Finally, the hon. member says he is concerned about job creation in Gatineau. How can he be? He is the same member whose party voted against the economic action plan which is supporting jobs and building futures in every region of the country, Quebec and Outaouais included. Our government has demonstrated time and time again that we are responsive and responsible. We will continue to act in that manner.

[The Leader of the Liberal Party, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a statement made by an hon. member of the House yesterday morning:

Yeah, another one, a fourth election in six years. Canadians don't want elections and I agree with them. It is terrible that we have to be in constant election cycles right here.

That quotation is from the same hon. member who criticized the Liberal leader's lack of clarity and lack of wisdom. It was made by none other than the Liberal MP for Papineau.

Canadians do not want an election. The hon. member for Papineau does not want an election. In fact, the only person in Canada who wants an election is the Leader of the Opposition. What a lack of wisdom.

[June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our government has taken unprecedented and extraordinary action to accelerate job-creating investments in Canada's economic action plan.

As I mentioned already, 80% of this year's part of our plan is already being implemented. In every region of Canada, families and businesses are paying less tax, unemployed workers are receiving improved support, and major job-creating building projects are breaking ground. It is important to remember that this is a two-year plan. We will be rolling out specific projects over the coming months to ensure every region receives maximum benefits.

While the opposition talks about an election that would delay help for those who need it now, we are focused on the economy. Canada is in a much stronger position to weather the global recession than most other countries. Our plan is internationally recognized as the right response to the global recession. Our strong position allows us to respond with a bold plan now when it is needed most.

That is why we are delivering $62 billion in stimulus while still retaining the smallest deficit and debt compared to the GDP of any of the G7 countries. While the Liberal leader talks about raising taxes, we will continue to deliver relief to Canadians.

[June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member may talk of doom and gloom, I should point out that our country and its economy are actually the praise of the world at this time. Our government is taking unprecedented action to stimulate our economy and to protect Canadians during these difficult times.

The question before us contains accusations of stalling from the very party that has done its utmost to prevent stimulus money from getting to those who need it most.

The nerve! I thought that the honourable member had heard what Canadians were saying. Canadians want their elected representatives to stop talking nonsense and start protecting them when they need it.

That is why our government tabled the economic action plan, a plan that injects $40 billion into the economy over the next two years. That is why our government tabled this plan as part of the earliest budget in history. That is why our government and our non-partisan public service have been working nonstop to get this money flowing quickly.

We condensed a process that typically takes six months into two while continuing to ensure due diligence and accountability. The results are posted for all to see at actionplan.gc.ca.

So before the honourable member starts talking about how our government is delaying the delivery of stimulus funds, maybe she should take a look at that website.

Here are just a few examples of federal-provincial cooperation that she will find.

On April 8 the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia announced investments totalling more than $455.1 million in 29 projects at post-secondary institutions throughout British Columbia.

On April 3 the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario announced a joint investment of $500 million to reduce wait times for GO Transit riders in the greater Toronto area and get more cars off the road.

On March 26 the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec announced a partnership to improve drinking water, support municipalities and create jobs.

Canada has an action plan that is admired around the world. It is one of the largest action plans in the G7. We have had the cooperation of the provinces and territories in creating additional stimulus. I am proud to report that 80% of the projects are being implemented now, within just 10 weeks of the budget having been passed.

This government committed to quarterly reports and the latest one was tabled last Thursday. I encourage the member opposite to read it. The report shows that 80% of this year's part of our action plan has already been implemented in every region of Canada. Families and businesses are paying less tax. Unemployed workers are receiving improved supports. Major job-creating building projects are breaking ground.

While the opposition talks about an election that would delay help for those who need it now, we are focused on the economy. The opposition is focused on throwing up roadblocks instead of getting roads built.

This last weekend my constituents made it clear that they want politicians to stop playing political games and get to work on their behalf. I suspect that hon. members are hearing the same refrain from residents in their own ridings. I ask hon. members to work together to support Canadians hardest hit by the economic downturn, to work together to help communities and businesses to adjust and grow during these extraordinary times.

I stand today in this House and call upon colleagues to stop serving partisan interests and instead start serving their own constituents, those people who elected them to this job. We are cutting red tape. It is time the opposition did the same.

At a critical time like this, we do not need more roadblocks, we need more roads built.

[The Economy, June 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister reported to Canadians that 80% of our economic action plan initiatives are already being implemented.

Conservatives are delivering results and creating jobs. The Conservative government's unprecedented effort to accelerate job-creating investments is working for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We are creating jobs, stimulating the economy, and helping those hardest hit by the global recession.

In Cambridge yesterday, the Prime Minister said:

In just 72 days, our government has eighty per cent of the largest economic recovery program in Canadian history under way.

We are providing tax relief and improved access to financing for Canadian households and businesses; assisting unemployed workers through extended EI benefits and improved skills training; creating jobs through a massive injection of infrastructure spending; and investing in the jobs of tomorrow through new supports for research and technology.

At actionplan.gc.ca, Canadians can view all the new job creation projects that the economic action plan and this Conservative government are delivering for Canadians.

[World Oceans Day, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as we just heard, June 8 marks the first United Nations World Oceans Day. The Government of Canada strongly supports sustainable and integrated use of ocean spaces. Today, organizations and individuals around the world celebrate our oceans, our personal connection to the sea, as well as raise awareness about the crucial role the oceans play in our lives.

Coming from North Vancouver, on Canada's Pacific coast, I have spent many happy days on the ocean on board my father's boat, swimming, fishing, catching crab, and enjoying the many splendours the ocean has to offer.

Oceans regulate our climate, transport our goods, and provide us with not only food but also thousands of jobs in diverse fields. That is why it is important that our rich ocean heritage is protected and carefully managed to ensure the continual productivity and health of our ecosystems.

That is why it is important that we take time to think of what we can do to help protect our oceans.

[Canadian Products Promotion Act, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the government to argue against Bill C-306, which the hon. member from the Bloc introduced last February.

The year is 2009, not 1929. We live in a time when Canada no longer needs to prop up its industries with protectionist laws. We live in a time of liberalized trade and increasingly open world markets.

The fact is that Canada is a trading nation, and it always has been. Trade is a huge part of who we are. It is a part of our past, it is a part of our future competitiveness and it is a key part of our fight against the current recession.

In a recent report by the World Economic Forum, Canada ranked fifth among 118 countries in enabling trade. That report measures the degree to which a country facilitates international trade and investment, and it bears witness to its successful economic development.

Indeed one in five jobs in Canada is dependent on international trade, and we export half of all our manufactured goods. Clearly our success as a nation is built on increasing trade with other countries, not putting up barriers to trade.

However, this bill would do exactly that. It would put up trade barriers by making it the law that federal departments and agencies buy only Canadian produced goods, and not only that, but buy them at prices up to 7.5% higher than the competing products of other countries. This is deeply flawed economics and a very short-sighted response to the recession.

However, we do not have to take my word for it. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said publicly that protectionism is not the way to fight a recession. Their position, and that of the government, has been stated clearly: protectionism would mean recession, or worse, for a very long time.

Just a few months ago, in Washington, the Prime Minister spoke out strongly against protectionism in the United States, saying, “If there is one thing that could turn a recession into a depression, it is protectionist measures across the world”.

The reality is that the economic slowdown is not just a Canadian problem; it is an international one. All countries need to focus on stimulating the global economy because we are in a global economy, not just our national economy.

One of the ways we are doing this is by keeping protectionism at bay. This is the point that Bill C-306 completely fails to grasp.

Can we imagine what would happen if Bill C-306 did become law? First of all, Canada would be made an international laughing stock. After all, at the November summit of the G20 countries, we, and all other countries, agreed to avoid a return to protectionism.

That the hon. member opposite would table such a bill shows how out of touch she and her party are. At a time when the world needs less protectionism, the hon. member has produced a bill that would force government departments and agencies, crown corporations and even foundations to buy Canadian products at inflated prices and to invite retaliation.

That is woolly economics. From the point of view of our trading partners, it would be a subsidy. Our trading partners would have a field day the next time we find ourselves in front of an international trade tribunal, which will be soon if the bill passes.

What kind of retrograde thinking is this when the countries of the world are acting together to fight the worst economic crisis in a generation? If we want to protect jobs today and position the economy for growth in the future, we do not do it by hiding behind artificial barriers to trade. That is totally wrong-headed.

For one, we are not helping our industries to become more competitive; we are coddling them. For another, adding a price preference for Canadian products essentially adds 7.5% to the operating costs of government, at all levels. I cannot believe that a member of the House thinks that is going to make our economy more competitive.

At a time when Canadians are sacrificing and when governments have put their costs under the microscope, to suggest that we pay a premium for bad economics is the height of absurdity. Our government is not looking backward like this. We are looking forward and outward.

We are against protectionist policies and we are determined to respect and uphold our trade commitments with our partners. That is why our Prime Minister was in Europe earlier this month, opening doors on trade talks with the European Union potentially worth $12 billion in new Canadian exports.

The government has a perfectly good plan to fight the recession. It is the economic action plan. This multi-year plan outlines the steps we will be taking to stimulate the economy, to protect Canadians during a global recession and to invest in our long-term economic growth. As a result of these actions, Canada will emerge from this recession with better infrastructure, a more skilled labour force, lower taxes and a more competitive economy.

To finance this plan, the government is making a deliberate choice to run a temporary deficit to help stimulate our economy. There will be no long-term running of permanent deficits because the approach we are taking emphasizes capital expenditures rather than increasing the operating costs of government. This allows us to meet short-term needs while serving long-term goals. It helps sustain and create jobs during the global recession, and it allows us to build the infrastructure our country needs for long-term growth.

As the economy recovers, we fully expect to emerge from deficit and return to surplus within five years. We will use future surpluses to pay off the debt incurred during this recession. This plan will get money into the hands of individuals, families and communities in all provinces and regions of this country.

The measures we are taking are necessary, affordable and short term. I want to emphasize that point. It is temporary. It will not permanently increase the cost of government. We will continue to avoid a long-term structural deficit that we cannot afford. The amount that we borrow this year will remain affordable and reasonable by international standards.

Let me also assure the hon. members that the economic action plan contains many measures to support industries in difficulty, including the forestry, manufacturing, tourism, agriculture, fisheries and automotive industries. At the same time we need to focus on keeping our markets open and continuing free trade with our American partners. When 80% of our manufactured goods are dependent upon the U.S. market, we cannot afford to start putting up barriers to trade. Nobody can, so let us not start with this bill. We need to keep the Canadian market open and we expect our trading partners to do the same.

Do the hon. members of this House honestly think that the best way to fight the recession is by increasing the cost of government and putting up new trade barriers at this time? Do they think that is the best way to protect jobs and prepare Canadians for the future?

I doubt the majority in this House would agree that this is the best way forward. I would ask members to vote to defeat this bill, which would undo everything that Canada and the world is fighting for: more jobs and strong, competitive economies for the future.

[Canadian Products Promotion Act, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that this bill will only affect $600 million worth of trade, a small amount, she says, but what about the message that it sends to the rest of the world? What about our reputational risk as a protectionist nation if we were to allow this bill to go through? Is it worth it for such a small amount?

There is no provision to exempt new and emerging trade agreements. In order to emerge from this recession, we need to continue trading with as few barriers as possible. The Great Depression taught us that the downward spiral of protectionism will only make the situation worse.

Surely, the member opposite cares about Canada's reputation and credibility. I would ask her this. If she is interested in our reputation, why is she putting forward a bill that is undermining current and emerging trade agreements?

[RCMP, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, this matter is before the courts and therefore I cannot comment on it. What I can say is that we are standing behind our RCMP officers. We are supporting them with new legislation to protect them in the line of duty. We are also spending more money on training and increasing the force by thousands of members. That is what we are doing for the RCMP. We are standing strong behind our men in uniform.

[RCMP, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our party is proud to say that we have more former police officers standing on our side of the House than any other party.

That is a member of a party that said that police officers had no place on judicial advisory committees, that they did not have the right, like other Canadians, to have input there. That is a member who, with respect to issues on house arrest, would allow arsonists to burn down houses, and then go home and enjoy the comforts of their own homes.

The Liberals are the ones who are soft on crime. We are the ones who are taking action against criminals.