Colin Carrie

[University of Ontario Institute of Technology, November 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that Oshawa is considered one of the fastest growing cities in Canada. Oshawa boasts some of the most impressive post-secondary institutions in Canada that will help create the jobs of tomorrow today.

Nowhere is this more evident than at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. In Oshawa, UOIT has created the perfect storm in the name of innovation. Recently, the Automotive Centre of Excellence was officially opened in the midst of a raging Arctic blizzard. This world-class facility includes one of the largest and most sophisticated climatic wind tunnels in the world. This tunnel can create temperatures from -40°C to 60°C and is able to assimilate conditions like driving in the middle of an Arctic blizzard. This is where the next generation of electric and alternative fuel vehicles, green energy technology and products will be discovered, tested and validated.

UOIT will help lead Oshawa into the future.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new vice-chancellor, Dr. Tim McTiernan.

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to my colleague's speech and I want to ask her a question about jobs and the economy.

She comes from Toronto, where one industry that relies on digital locks is the video game industry, as I mentioned a little earlier. As a consumer, I have the right to purchase copies of video games in many different formats and utilize them in many different fashions. For example, I can go online and find companies that will sell previews of their games. If people like a game, they can sign up and do it month by month. One business model is to purchase one copy of a game on a disk and utilize that game for one's enjoyment. The business relies on that model to employ thousands of Canadians in her riding and the area of Toronto.

I believe in property rights myself. It is a fundamental right that if I own property, I should be able to utilize it at my desire. If a company wants to sell a locked copy of a digital game, which is its business model, and I as a consumer want to buy it, what is wrong with that? We have heard over and over from New Democrats that they are not going to support any legislation with digital locks, but Canadian jobs depend on this in the member's community. What is wrong with consumers choosing to purchase a certain format and utilizing it as they wish? What does the NDP have against that?

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech and I wanted to raise something really important to all Canadians. It is about jobs and the economy.

I would like to mention an industry that he should be aware of because it is a huge industry in British Columbia and in Quebec. It is the video game industry. I will give an example. A video game company spends literally tens of thousands of hours to put together a video game. This intellectual property is very important to them for their business model. Theoretically, a member of Parliament in the NDP could take that video game and, because of the technology, the member could break that lock and upload it onto the Internet. Everyone around the world could now be utilizing that intellectual property, that video game that the creator or the industry put tens of thousands of hours and millions of dollars into developing it.

I see that as a fundamental breach of personal rights and property rights. If the NDP holds onto this position, as the member has said, the NDP will not supporting any piece of legislation that has digital locks, hundreds of jobs in British Columbia would be lost and hundreds or thousands of jobs in Quebec would be lost.

I was wondering how the member could reconcile this. Different models can be put forward on the Internet. People can download and share games in different ways. However, if I, as a consumer, choose to buy a video game that has a digital lock, what is wrong with that? What will the member to say to all of his constituents in British Columbia who could lose their jobs because of this irresponsible policy of the NDP?

[November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate for my colleague that the Speaker of the House has ruled many times that committees are responsible for determining their own proceedings. It is not the Department of Health that tells a committee what to do.

The Government of Canada recognizes that Canadians expect their health care system to be there when they and their families need it most. Canadians want to see their governments working together to ensure that their publicly funded health care system will deliver the high quality services that Canadians expect.

In order to meet the expectations of Canadians, this government is committed to implementing the 2004 accord by providing $41.3 billion over 10 years in additional funding through the Canada health transfer. This funding will support provincial and territorial health care delivery in the priority areas identified in the accord, and our commitment to the health accord comes with the commitment to the review process.

The Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology is currently conducting a review of the 2004 health accord. It has been diligently examining progress across the priority areas. I, like all members, look forward to the committee's report when it has completed its review.

As I said earlier, the Speaker has ruled that committees are responsible for determining their own proceedings.

We look forward to any work that is being done and to inform Canadians about these important--

[November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, health care is extremely important to Canadians and our health care system is something in which Canadians take pride. This government is committed to the Canada Health Act and the principles of universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public administration it embodies. These principles represent a common vision for Canada's publicly funded health care system that ensures every Canadian has access to the hospital and medical services that he or she needs.

While health care is a shared responsibility in the country, the government recognizes provincial jurisdiction and the primary responsibility provinces and territories have for the administration and delivery of health care services. Provinces and territories are directly responsible for setting priorities, administering health care budgets and managing resources.

Since coming to office, this government has worked collaboratively with the provinces and territories to advance the objectives of the 2004 health accord. We have introduced new measures to reduce wait times, improve access to physicians and nurses and accelerate the implementation of electronic health records.

This government has also introduced further measures to support physicians and nurses in rural and remote communities, home and community care, cancer, mental health and the prevention of childhood obesity. We have done so in order to address the changing health needs of Canadians and to contribute to the real improvements in the health care system.

Parliament has a key role to play in taking stock of what has been accomplished through the health accord. Federal legislation mandated two parliamentary reviews of the accord, one in 2008 and the second in 2011.

In 2008 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health carried out a parliamentary review focused on the federal commitments in the 2004 accord. The member is able to read that if she would look that up.

Last March, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology initiated the second review to examine the report on the progress in implementing the accord. If the member remembers in the last Parliament, the opposition actually had the majority, and in the House of Commons committee it was decided not to study this. The minister was mandated for the study and that is why it went to the Senate.

As that review was interrupted by the election, the committee resumed its work this fall. Like all members, I look forward to receiving the committee's report when the review has been completed.

In the meantime, the Government of Canada's funding for health care is at an all time high. For example, this reflects the importance that Canadians place on the effective, efficient and responsive health care system. This also demonstrates the government's commitment to the health and well-being of Canadians.

As set out in the June 2011 budget, federal cash transfers to the provinces and territories through the Canada health transfer will amount to $27 billion in 2011-2012. These investments provide growing and predictable financial support to enable provinces and territories to deliver high quality health care to Canadians.

Federal funding for health care through the Canada health transfer is legislated to grow 6% annually until 2013-14 and we are committed to extending this arrangement to 2015-16. There are still two more years before the end of the current health accord, which gives us time to give proper consideration to the changing health care needs of Canadians and ensuring the long-term sustainability of our health care system.

Strengthening Canada's capacity to protect and improve the health of Canadians is of the utmost importance to our government. We look forward to continuing this work with the provinces and territories on ways to help Canadians live healthier lives.

[Fair Representation Act, November 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate back and forth and I want to comment on the hypocrisy of the opposition here this afternoon. I know I cannot say whether a member is in the House or not, but if a count were taken, we would find less than a dozen here and even fewer are participating in this hugely important debate on one of the fundamental principles that our country was based on, representation by population.

I come from Ontario and for years we have been under-represented. The truth of the hypocrisy here is that the opposition parties want to stall this legislation because they know that if they stall it right now there will be no change in the next election and we would have eight more years of under-representation. That is what those parties want for Ontario and the rest of this country.

I want to ask my colleague, who believes in the fundamental principles of Canada, what could be the motivation of the opposition parties to stall representation by population, particularly for my province of Ontario.

[Fair Representation Act, November 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I know he really believes in democratic reform and representation by population.

A few options have been put forward by other parties in the House. I was wondering if he would take this opportunity to contrast the fair and democratic proposition we are putting forward with some of the propositions that are being brought forward by other parties that may have to worry about special interest groups and special favouritism for different parts of the country.

Could the member take this opportunity to explain to Canadians why it is important that we adopt this now so that we can move ahead promptly to get this in place?

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleague to know that I hold him in great respect in this House but I do have some concern with his language. It really shows what the Liberal government had intended when it set up this long gun registry.

In the part of the bill that talks about destroying personal records, he called that destroying evidence. When do governments or police forces gather evidence? They gather evidence when there is a crime committed.

However, gun owners are not criminals. They are law-abiding citizens in Canada who believe in the right to own personal property, and their personal information and records are not evidence. It is extremely upsetting to Canadians who are abiding by the law and who put their records out there to respond to the law that is on the books today to be treated like criminals.

Why does the member view law-abiding gun owners as criminals and their personal information and records as evidence?

[October 20th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, one thing we can be sure of is that the Liberals are experts at bailing out. I think that was the issue with the helicopters that the armed forces did need.

The F-35 will help the Canadian Forces defend the sovereignty of Canadian airspace, remain a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America, and provide Canada with an effective and modern capability for international operations.

This government is fully committed to delivering a modern, multi-role, combat capable Canadian Forces in a sustainable and affordable way. We are taking steps to improve efficiency and effectiveness at defence to be able to do just that.

The investments that this government committed to in the Canada first defence strategy will enhance the readiness and capabilities of the Canadian Forces. These investments will improve and increase training for personnel and make more equipment available for both training and operations.

Even as the government fulfills these commitments, we will also ensure that all programs and initiatives will make the best and most efficient use of taxpayers' dollars.

That is our commitment.

[October 20th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood for his question and the opportunity to answer it here in the House.

First, let me start by saying that in today's uncertain world, we cannot know all of the potential threats that Canada may face in the future. However, as we outlined in the Canada first defence strategy in 2008, the Royal Canadian Air Force requires a next generation fighter to carry out its core missions of defending Canadian sovereign airspace, defending North America as a partner in NORAD, and providing this country with an effective and modern capability for international operations.

The joint strike fighter is an advanced, adaptable and sustainable multi-role platform that will defend against those threats we can foresee today and those that we may encounter in the coming decades.

The F-35 is the only fighter aircraft available that meets the Canadian Forces' requirements. I should remind the member opposite that this aircraft was selected after an extensive and rigorous competitive process conducted by a partnership that the Liberal government joined.

The commitment to purchase next generation fighter aircraft was clearly spelled out in the Canada first defence strategy.

This commitment was made following a thorough analysis of the current and perceived roles and core missions that this fighter would be responsible for. The conclusion was that a fleet of next generation fighters will be required to successfully carry out Canada's obligations both at home and abroad.

More important, Canadian participation in the joint strike fighter program will bring high-value jobs and other economic benefits to our country for decades to come.

Canadian companies will have access to billions of dollars' worth of subcontracts for the entire production run of more than 3,000 joint strike fighters being purchased by partner nations under the JSF memorandum of understanding, as well as for the many potential additional aircraft that are expected to be acquired by non-partner nations.

This government remains on track to acquire these aircraft for the amount we have budgeted. These costs are based on actual detailed estimates calculated by the multinational joint strike fighter program office on an evolving basis and are validated through independent analysis.

Canada is purchasing the least costly variant of the aircraft at the most cost effective point of production.

Canada is contributing a fixed amount to the development of the F-35 program.

The cost of the procurement as well as the sustainment of the F-35 fleet is fully funded through the Canada first defence strategy and the national defence investment plan.

While the Liberal members in the House have cold feet about the program they started, we remain steadfast in our support to the needs of the military and providing the resources it needs so that our troops can continue to do the important work that is asked of them.